Offering Answers Pre-Emptively Declined May 4, 2009 9:59 AM Subscribe
My question is prompted by this post, though I don't want this to come across as a callout when it's not. I'm just unsure as to the etiquette.
I've seen many AskMe questions where the original poster says "please don't tell me to seek therapy" and many commenters will say "you really need therapy". No one seems to get on their case about it (nor do I think they should). Sometimes therapy is the best advice you can offer someone, even if they don't want to hear it.
In the case of the post I reference, the original poster says "No Western religion. At all." As a Christian in the Reformed tradition, I feel that specific doctrines in Christian theology offer answers and explanations to many of the questions and issues that are troubling the original poster. As is the case with therapy, sometimes I believe that theology offers the best answers to a particular question, even if the asker doesn't want to hear it.
I opted to respect the poster's wishes and not comment in the thread, but I'm unsure of the etiquette here. I will confess that I'm a little intimidated by (what I perceive to be) a generally Christian-unfriendly population on Metafilter. That's not intended as flamebait, but it informed my decision not to post in the thread.
Is it acceptable to suggest solutions in AskMe that the original poster has specifically said (s)he doesn't want to hear?
I've seen many AskMe questions where the original poster says "please don't tell me to seek therapy" and many commenters will say "you really need therapy". No one seems to get on their case about it (nor do I think they should). Sometimes therapy is the best advice you can offer someone, even if they don't want to hear it.
In the case of the post I reference, the original poster says "No Western religion. At all." As a Christian in the Reformed tradition, I feel that specific doctrines in Christian theology offer answers and explanations to many of the questions and issues that are troubling the original poster. As is the case with therapy, sometimes I believe that theology offers the best answers to a particular question, even if the asker doesn't want to hear it.
I opted to respect the poster's wishes and not comment in the thread, but I'm unsure of the etiquette here. I will confess that I'm a little intimidated by (what I perceive to be) a generally Christian-unfriendly population on Metafilter. That's not intended as flamebait, but it informed my decision not to post in the thread.
Is it acceptable to suggest solutions in AskMe that the original poster has specifically said (s)he doesn't want to hear?
People will respectfully offer differing opinions in threads and that's okay whether it's about Christianity, pet care or therapy. I think the biggest thing is to be cognizant of the fact that the OP said they don't want advice in that direction and you're suggesting it anyhow, so what are you trying to accomplish. If you think there's a super book on how to deal with things like that (the OP is asking for things to read so "go to church" is actually off topic) that happens to have a Christian slant, feel free to go ahead.
However, I'd also consider that the person may be asking for no Western religion because they have considered, tried and/or possibly discarded that option. The issue I think some people here have about Christianity -- and I'm referring to myself specifically though I have noticed it in others -- is the tone-deafness that some of the prosyletization seems to have to it, that "surely if you understood Christianity, you'd choose it, so maybe you don't understand it, here let me explain it again...." approach. I'm sure the same can be said for people who are all "therapy changed my life!" people, but there's not the same cultural weight attached to therapy as there is to Christianity [the dominant religion in the US] at least not in my world. So I don't think people are Christian-unfriendly per se (though some are) but that people are prosyletization-unfriendly which is why they get pissed about Apple/PC fanboy threads and threads about what's so cool about Twitter. There are a good number if people of various faiths on MeFi who I think have done excellent jobs explaining why their faith is important to them and what they get out of it and they are valued community members.
It's certainly not your fault at all that we've had some strange aggressive Christian members here and some strange aggressive atheists who have butted heads in ugly and unpleasant ways on the site. But, knowing that, you can make your approach as value-neutral as possible, along the lines of "I've had similar problems and this is what worked for me, I know you said that's not what you're looking for but I wanted to toss it out there" and then leaving it alone. If people jump on that, we can deal with that. That said, the OP is asking for uplifting things to read, so if your response is just "learning about Jesus will make you feel better" that may not be helpful.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 10:09 AM on May 4, 2009 [12 favorites]
However, I'd also consider that the person may be asking for no Western religion because they have considered, tried and/or possibly discarded that option. The issue I think some people here have about Christianity -- and I'm referring to myself specifically though I have noticed it in others -- is the tone-deafness that some of the prosyletization seems to have to it, that "surely if you understood Christianity, you'd choose it, so maybe you don't understand it, here let me explain it again...." approach. I'm sure the same can be said for people who are all "therapy changed my life!" people, but there's not the same cultural weight attached to therapy as there is to Christianity [the dominant religion in the US] at least not in my world. So I don't think people are Christian-unfriendly per se (though some are) but that people are prosyletization-unfriendly which is why they get pissed about Apple/PC fanboy threads and threads about what's so cool about Twitter. There are a good number if people of various faiths on MeFi who I think have done excellent jobs explaining why their faith is important to them and what they get out of it and they are valued community members.
It's certainly not your fault at all that we've had some strange aggressive Christian members here and some strange aggressive atheists who have butted heads in ugly and unpleasant ways on the site. But, knowing that, you can make your approach as value-neutral as possible, along the lines of "I've had similar problems and this is what worked for me, I know you said that's not what you're looking for but I wanted to toss it out there" and then leaving it alone. If people jump on that, we can deal with that. That said, the OP is asking for uplifting things to read, so if your response is just "learning about Jesus will make you feel better" that may not be helpful.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 10:09 AM on May 4, 2009 [12 favorites]
Proselytizing for organized religion is not really the same as suggesting a medical treatment like psychotherapy.
Is it acceptable to suggest solutions in AskMe that the original poster has specifically said (s)he doesn't want to hear?
I guess I don't agree with your initial premises, to say that your question applies.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 10:10 AM on May 4, 2009 [1 favorite]
Is it acceptable to suggest solutions in AskMe that the original poster has specifically said (s)he doesn't want to hear?
I guess I don't agree with your initial premises, to say that your question applies.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 10:10 AM on May 4, 2009 [1 favorite]
There is a generally Christian-unfriendly plurality at Metafilter, for sure. There's also a Libertarian plurality, and quite a few total heathens & godless communists. There's also plentyy of good Christians. They have their place at the table, just like the LOLXTIANS.
In this case though, where it's specifically asked-not-for, then just demur. We can't all save everybody from everything. Move on to the next question.
FWIW, The Vonnegut's not gonna help, either, rokusan.
posted by Devils Rancher at 10:13 AM on May 4, 2009
In this case though, where it's specifically asked-not-for, then just demur. We can't all save everybody from everything. Move on to the next question.
FWIW, The Vonnegut's not gonna help, either, rokusan.
posted by Devils Rancher at 10:13 AM on May 4, 2009
Asker specifically rules out your answer in advance. Your options:
1. Take the asker at his word; assume that he has heard your answer before.
2. Assume that the asker thinks he has heard your answer before, but actually he hasn't--you can explain it better than whoever the asker may have previously encountered.
Which is more respectful to the asker?
posted by equalpants at 10:15 AM on May 4, 2009
1. Take the asker at his word; assume that he has heard your answer before.
2. Assume that the asker thinks he has heard your answer before, but actually he hasn't--you can explain it better than whoever the asker may have previously encountered.
Which is more respectful to the asker?
posted by equalpants at 10:15 AM on May 4, 2009
If you knowingly disregard the questioner's very clearly stated preference, they would have every reason for thinking that your concern is with evangelizing rather than helping them.
posted by Joe Beese at 10:15 AM on May 4, 2009
posted by Joe Beese at 10:15 AM on May 4, 2009
Jessamyn sure types fast.
posted by Devils Rancher at 10:17 AM on May 4, 2009 [7 favorites]
posted by Devils Rancher at 10:17 AM on May 4, 2009 [7 favorites]
I try very hard to avoid making suggestions that the poster has nixed in the setup of the question, mostly because I am not particularly thrilled when people do it to me. Give people the benefit of the doubt in that, if they have mentioned it, they've already considered particular avenue and have, for one reason or another, decided against it. "Well, they've at least thought about it, and to bring it up not only fails to answer the question, it also sends the message, 'Yeah, I just know better.'" That's a two-strike bit, right there.
I do not always succeed at holding myself to this standard, and wince when I realize I have failed.
As to "Christian-unfriendly," I do not think of the population here as Christian-unfriendly so much as not automatically Christianity-compliant. Coming from the vastly dominant religion in the country from which a majority of the posters originate, it is easy to see how the two might be confused. Aside from a very few places in United States meatspace and a somewhat larger number of communities online, Christianity can insert itself frictionlessly into most every question, conversation, and situation. See "In God We Trust" printed on something near your body, or those ubiquitous "What Would Jesus Do?" bracelets. That tiny bit of drag Christianity may experience on MetaFilter when appearing may seem quite jarring in comparison to your normal experience, but it is not anywhere near what actual "Christian-unfriendly" would look like.
For examples of this, see Pater Aletheias' wonderfully sidebarred comment not too long back. In an actually Christian-unfriendly site, he probably wouldn't even be present, much less lauded for his insightful contribution.
posted by adipocere at 10:28 AM on May 4, 2009 [14 favorites]
I do not always succeed at holding myself to this standard, and wince when I realize I have failed.
As to "Christian-unfriendly," I do not think of the population here as Christian-unfriendly so much as not automatically Christianity-compliant. Coming from the vastly dominant religion in the country from which a majority of the posters originate, it is easy to see how the two might be confused. Aside from a very few places in United States meatspace and a somewhat larger number of communities online, Christianity can insert itself frictionlessly into most every question, conversation, and situation. See "In God We Trust" printed on something near your body, or those ubiquitous "What Would Jesus Do?" bracelets. That tiny bit of drag Christianity may experience on MetaFilter when appearing may seem quite jarring in comparison to your normal experience, but it is not anywhere near what actual "Christian-unfriendly" would look like.
For examples of this, see Pater Aletheias' wonderfully sidebarred comment not too long back. In an actually Christian-unfriendly site, he probably wouldn't even be present, much less lauded for his insightful contribution.
posted by adipocere at 10:28 AM on May 4, 2009 [14 favorites]
Good question. I think it really depends on the AskMe, the circumstances involving the AskMe, and the solution that the Asker has preemptively denied.
In the case of religion/philosophy/relationships, answers are almost always subjective, since these are all issues that are rarely grounded in demonstrable fact.
In the case of health/science/technology, answers are more often (ideally) based on fact, with lots of opinion mixed in.
My general feeling is that you should only go against the Asker's wishes when the question is of the latter type and when the answer you provide can be buttressed with lots and lots of factual supporting evidence. This is rare, and usually if you have any doubt, just don't.
(Or, on those rare occasions when the Asker's line of thought is clearly putting him/her in potential danger, like "My boyfriend/girlfriend promised not to beat me any more if I clean the house every day. What cleaning supplies do I need? Do NOT tell me to dump them.")
posted by Damn That Television at 10:31 AM on May 4, 2009 [3 favorites]
In the case of religion/philosophy/relationships, answers are almost always subjective, since these are all issues that are rarely grounded in demonstrable fact.
In the case of health/science/technology, answers are more often (ideally) based on fact, with lots of opinion mixed in.
My general feeling is that you should only go against the Asker's wishes when the question is of the latter type and when the answer you provide can be buttressed with lots and lots of factual supporting evidence. This is rare, and usually if you have any doubt, just don't.
(Or, on those rare occasions when the Asker's line of thought is clearly putting him/her in potential danger, like "My boyfriend/girlfriend promised not to beat me any more if I clean the house every day. What cleaning supplies do I need? Do NOT tell me to dump them.")
posted by Damn That Television at 10:31 AM on May 4, 2009 [3 favorites]
If I entirely remove the question of religion and wonder what I'd do, if I felt strongly about it -- I think I'd say, I know you said you tried X, but I wondered whether you'd considered Y component of X.
I don't think it's disrespectful to humbly suggest an alternate viewpoint, as long as it's done humbly and sincerely and makes it clear that the responder has actually read the question, and that it's not an insult to the poster, and as long as it genuinely contains a seed of an idea that actually may not have been considered--which means I think that you have to assume that the poster is already educated, intelligent, well-informed, etc. I don't think "Have you read the bible?" really adds anything new to anyone's experience. But something else might.
And Oh, crap, now that I think of it I realize that the poem I put in that thread contains the word 'God'. Sorry, OP. I'm a jackass. I don't even believe in God. I just love the poem.
posted by A Terrible Llama at 10:41 AM on May 4, 2009 [2 favorites]
I don't think it's disrespectful to humbly suggest an alternate viewpoint, as long as it's done humbly and sincerely and makes it clear that the responder has actually read the question, and that it's not an insult to the poster, and as long as it genuinely contains a seed of an idea that actually may not have been considered--which means I think that you have to assume that the poster is already educated, intelligent, well-informed, etc. I don't think "Have you read the bible?" really adds anything new to anyone's experience. But something else might.
And Oh, crap, now that I think of it I realize that the poem I put in that thread contains the word 'God'. Sorry, OP. I'm a jackass. I don't even believe in God. I just love the poem.
posted by A Terrible Llama at 10:41 AM on May 4, 2009 [2 favorites]
Thank you for the insights, all.
If you knowingly disregard the questioner's very clearly stated preference, they would have every reason for thinking that your concern is with evangelizing rather than helping them.
Does this notion apply to all forms of advice or only to theologically-based advice? If someone is seeking pet advice and they say "please don't tell me to spay my cat", am I out of line to say "spaying your cat is really the best choice here?" If the person answering genuinely believes that their answer is helpful, does that mitigate the etiquette trespass?
If the answer here is "Christianity doesn't count because it's not real", I can live with that. It would tend to be at odds with Devils Rancher's notion that Christians have a place at the table, but I also understand that it's not my table.
posted by DWRoelands at 10:41 AM on May 4, 2009
If you knowingly disregard the questioner's very clearly stated preference, they would have every reason for thinking that your concern is with evangelizing rather than helping them.
Does this notion apply to all forms of advice or only to theologically-based advice? If someone is seeking pet advice and they say "please don't tell me to spay my cat", am I out of line to say "spaying your cat is really the best choice here?" If the person answering genuinely believes that their answer is helpful, does that mitigate the etiquette trespass?
If the answer here is "Christianity doesn't count because it's not real", I can live with that. It would tend to be at odds with Devils Rancher's notion that Christians have a place at the table, but I also understand that it's not my table.
posted by DWRoelands at 10:41 AM on May 4, 2009
Please don't interpret my followup as combativeness. I enjoy hearing other points of view with regards to theology and culture and this is a rich trove of information. :)
posted by DWRoelands at 10:44 AM on May 4, 2009
posted by DWRoelands at 10:44 AM on May 4, 2009
That's a good question, DWRoelands. I think that one should be especially cautious when it comes to religious matters here, and in real life as well. Other subjects are not nearly so touchy, but whatever the subject, be it religion or Pokemon, people will eventually bristle if you keep giving them advice that they've specifically ruled out.
posted by Mister_A at 10:49 AM on May 4, 2009
posted by Mister_A at 10:49 AM on May 4, 2009
Does this notion apply to all forms of advice or only to theologically-based advice?
I think it applies to more than just theology, but context makes a big difference and so there's a significant matter of degree involved. That some religious beliefs directly or indirectly push believers to evangelize can create context-specific tension that's not applicable to otherwise superficially analogous "I know you said no x, but..." situation:
1. The motivation for the contravention of the asker's premise comes into question—are they saying "yes but really do x" because there's an objective x-will-help angle that the asker missed, or just because they're compelled by their xism to advocate for x?
2. It's reasonably possible that the asker who is trying preclude x is doing so for reasons more charged than merely having a hunch that x isn't what they want—plenty of folks have had objectionable direct experiences with one religion or another such that they have more than a casual, value-neutral aversion to engaging with it further/again.
Like Jessamyn said, this doesn't apply solely to theology—my first point applies almost as well to hardware/software fanboyism as it does to religious advocacy, for example—but religious issues tend to operate on somewhat more intensely personal and potentially volatile plane than more corporeal topics.
I think the answer is not anything like "Christianity doesn't count because it's not real", no. It's more like "Religion is really personal and touchy, so if you're going to push back against an asker's stated wishes/preferences/proscriptions in askme, please take a really, really careful look at what you're saying and why you're saying it and try not to unnecessarily escalate the tone of the thread or violate the spirit of the guidelines in the process."
posted by cortex (staff) at 10:57 AM on May 4, 2009 [2 favorites]
I think it applies to more than just theology, but context makes a big difference and so there's a significant matter of degree involved. That some religious beliefs directly or indirectly push believers to evangelize can create context-specific tension that's not applicable to otherwise superficially analogous "I know you said no x, but..." situation:
1. The motivation for the contravention of the asker's premise comes into question—are they saying "yes but really do x" because there's an objective x-will-help angle that the asker missed, or just because they're compelled by their xism to advocate for x?
2. It's reasonably possible that the asker who is trying preclude x is doing so for reasons more charged than merely having a hunch that x isn't what they want—plenty of folks have had objectionable direct experiences with one religion or another such that they have more than a casual, value-neutral aversion to engaging with it further/again.
Like Jessamyn said, this doesn't apply solely to theology—my first point applies almost as well to hardware/software fanboyism as it does to religious advocacy, for example—but religious issues tend to operate on somewhat more intensely personal and potentially volatile plane than more corporeal topics.
I think the answer is not anything like "Christianity doesn't count because it's not real", no. It's more like "Religion is really personal and touchy, so if you're going to push back against an asker's stated wishes/preferences/proscriptions in askme, please take a really, really careful look at what you're saying and why you're saying it and try not to unnecessarily escalate the tone of the thread or violate the spirit of the guidelines in the process."
posted by cortex (staff) at 10:57 AM on May 4, 2009 [2 favorites]
If the answer here is "Christianity doesn't count because it's not real", I can live with that. It would tend to be at odds with Devils Rancher's notion that Christians have a place at the table, but I also understand that it's not my table.
I don' think that's the answer here at all -- you're misreading it. There are some prominent site members who will tell you that's the answer, but they don't speak for the Christians here, I can assure you, and the staff has done their level best to make the site as comfortable for people of varying belief systems as practicable, without going all Moderation X-treem™. There have been some vocal Christians who haven't been able to take the heat in the past as well, but don't let that color your opinion of the site as a whole. People in this thread I think have spoken to a very specific concern, regarding a specific AskMe question, and it absolutely does not mean "Shut up about your faith" across the site.
I don't bang my faith on the table like a big huge book, but that's my business. That, and it's kind of weird, and I don't expect anyone to understand it.
posted by Devils Rancher at 10:58 AM on May 4, 2009
I don' think that's the answer here at all -- you're misreading it. There are some prominent site members who will tell you that's the answer, but they don't speak for the Christians here, I can assure you, and the staff has done their level best to make the site as comfortable for people of varying belief systems as practicable, without going all Moderation X-treem™. There have been some vocal Christians who haven't been able to take the heat in the past as well, but don't let that color your opinion of the site as a whole. People in this thread I think have spoken to a very specific concern, regarding a specific AskMe question, and it absolutely does not mean "Shut up about your faith" across the site.
I don't bang my faith on the table like a big huge book, but that's my business. That, and it's kind of weird, and I don't expect anyone to understand it.
posted by Devils Rancher at 10:58 AM on May 4, 2009
cortex sure types fast.
posted by Devils Rancher at 11:01 AM on May 4, 2009 [3 favorites]
posted by Devils Rancher at 11:01 AM on May 4, 2009 [3 favorites]
Devils Rancher, I'd probably buy a coffeetable book called "My Kind of Weird and Expectedly Incomprehensible Faith" if you wrote it. I could keep it on hand when the Jehovah's Witnesses dropped by for a chat. Will there be pictures, and strange diagrams?
posted by adipocere at 11:02 AM on May 4, 2009 [3 favorites]
posted by adipocere at 11:02 AM on May 4, 2009 [3 favorites]
I'd like to find some way to broach the subject of how gluing a futuristic religious text to a sandworm decoy would yield an Orange Catholic Bible Thumper, but I can't seem to make it work.
posted by cortex (staff) at 11:06 AM on May 4, 2009 [11 favorites]
posted by cortex (staff) at 11:06 AM on May 4, 2009 [11 favorites]
Does this notion apply to all forms of advice or only to theologically-based advice? If someone is seeking pet advice and they say "please don't tell me to spay my cat", am I out of line to say "spaying your cat is really the best choice here?"
Giving cat-spaying advice originates from different motivations than giving advice on behalf of organized religion. Again, the two examples are not equivalent.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 11:07 AM on May 4, 2009 [1 favorite]
Giving cat-spaying advice originates from different motivations than giving advice on behalf of organized religion. Again, the two examples are not equivalent.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 11:07 AM on May 4, 2009 [1 favorite]
DWR- There's a distinction between your cat-spaying example and the actual question at hand.
In the question at hand, the asker tells you why s/he doesn't want to hear about benevolent deities. S/he simply doesn't believe in them.
In the cat-spaying case, the asker could say "I don't want to spay my cat because the cat is ill and can't be spayed" or possibly "I don't want to spay my cat because I want cute little kitties" or they could give no reason at all. I'd say the closest parallel to the actual question asked is the first option here; there really is a reason why straightup Christian or other deity-based methods won't work here.
On the other hand, if you want to unpack some of the reasoning behind the theology you speak of, and apply it in a way someone who does not believe in a deity could find useful, then that would be fine. If belief in a god is central to your arguments, they are probably not very useful to this asker.
Or if you found a set of heartwarming stories to suggest, even if they were Christian, that would be ok (as long as the stories have a point beyond "God is great").
I think the point here is that you really should go with the premises given by the asker. The asker doesn't believe in a deity, so saying "believe in god and your troubles will be over" is useless, and possibly insulting.
In the cat example, it would be like suggesting that a cat who has some contraindication should be spayed anyways.
posted by nat at 11:08 AM on May 4, 2009 [1 favorite]
In the question at hand, the asker tells you why s/he doesn't want to hear about benevolent deities. S/he simply doesn't believe in them.
In the cat-spaying case, the asker could say "I don't want to spay my cat because the cat is ill and can't be spayed" or possibly "I don't want to spay my cat because I want cute little kitties" or they could give no reason at all. I'd say the closest parallel to the actual question asked is the first option here; there really is a reason why straightup Christian or other deity-based methods won't work here.
On the other hand, if you want to unpack some of the reasoning behind the theology you speak of, and apply it in a way someone who does not believe in a deity could find useful, then that would be fine. If belief in a god is central to your arguments, they are probably not very useful to this asker.
Or if you found a set of heartwarming stories to suggest, even if they were Christian, that would be ok (as long as the stories have a point beyond "God is great").
I think the point here is that you really should go with the premises given by the asker. The asker doesn't believe in a deity, so saying "believe in god and your troubles will be over" is useless, and possibly insulting.
In the cat example, it would be like suggesting that a cat who has some contraindication should be spayed anyways.
posted by nat at 11:08 AM on May 4, 2009 [1 favorite]
Devils Rancher, I'd probably buy a coffeetable book called "My Kind of Weird and Expectedly Incomprehensible Faith" if you wrote it. I could keep it on hand when the Jehovah's Witnesses dropped by for a chat. Will there be pictures, and strange diagrams?
Yes, and yes, and leather-bound, and embossed, so as to leave a really deep print on their foreheads when you smite them.
posted by Devils Rancher at 11:09 AM on May 4, 2009 [1 favorite]
Yes, and yes, and leather-bound, and embossed, so as to leave a really deep print on their foreheads when you smite them.
posted by Devils Rancher at 11:09 AM on May 4, 2009 [1 favorite]
"My Kind of Weird and Expectedly Incomprehensible Faith"
I'd also like to note that this Great Work has been delayed interminably by the apparent demise of the Markov filter.
posted by Devils Rancher at 11:12 AM on May 4, 2009 [2 favorites]
I'd also like to note that this Great Work has been delayed interminably by the apparent demise of the Markov filter.
posted by Devils Rancher at 11:12 AM on May 4, 2009 [2 favorites]
Giving cat-spaying advice originates from different motivations than giving advice on behalf of organized religion.
I believe that in the great majority of cases, both are driven by basic compassion and a desire to help another human being in need.
posted by DWRoelands at 11:18 AM on May 4, 2009 [1 favorite]
I believe that in the great majority of cases, both are driven by basic compassion and a desire to help another human being in need.
posted by DWRoelands at 11:18 AM on May 4, 2009 [1 favorite]
My kids hated vegetables, refused to eat'em, said they'd never eat them. But we needed to get some nutrition in them. So we served them spaghettis and eggs with vegetables mixed in. That was ok, except for the onions, those were a definite no go. But otherwise slipping in vegetables that didn't overpower the good stuff was fine.
Religion goes down better when you're not shoving it someone's face. There's no need to say "X doctrine from X gospel taught me this" Use parables and stories like Jesus did. If the person wants to know where the idea behind the story came from, tell'em, but otherwise there's no need to say RELIGION TAUGHT ME THIS. It's very off putting.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 11:19 AM on May 4, 2009 [5 favorites]
Religion goes down better when you're not shoving it someone's face. There's no need to say "X doctrine from X gospel taught me this" Use parables and stories like Jesus did. If the person wants to know where the idea behind the story came from, tell'em, but otherwise there's no need to say RELIGION TAUGHT ME THIS. It's very off putting.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 11:19 AM on May 4, 2009 [5 favorites]
I'd buy Devil Rancher's book as well. Heck, I may attempt to license the title from him. :)
posted by DWRoelands at 11:19 AM on May 4, 2009
posted by DWRoelands at 11:19 AM on May 4, 2009
There's a difference between suggesting a religion and suggesting philosophical outlooks that are similar to those found in (unnamed) religions.
For instance, say I'm having a problem with suffering but then specify that I don't want any "new age garbage".
A bad answer to my question would be: "Try Buddhism!"
A good answer to my question might be: "You aren't suffering because you don't have $X, you are suffering because you want $X. Try being content with what you do have."
Also, you should try turning your question (the one in this here MeTa post) around. If you are struggling with your faith and go to a minister, do you want him to say something like "have you tried atheism"?
posted by DU at 11:26 AM on May 4, 2009 [8 favorites]
For instance, say I'm having a problem with suffering but then specify that I don't want any "new age garbage".
A bad answer to my question would be: "Try Buddhism!"
A good answer to my question might be: "You aren't suffering because you don't have $X, you are suffering because you want $X. Try being content with what you do have."
Also, you should try turning your question (the one in this here MeTa post) around. If you are struggling with your faith and go to a minister, do you want him to say something like "have you tried atheism"?
posted by DU at 11:26 AM on May 4, 2009 [8 favorites]
Also, you should try turning your question (the one in this here MeTa post) around. If you are struggling with your faith and go to a minister, do you want him to say something like "have you tried atheism"?
I should not expect a minister to suggest atheism. Do you mean to suggest that no one on MetaFilter should expect to hear theologically-based advice? Because that's what your question seems to imply.
posted by DWRoelands at 11:31 AM on May 4, 2009
I should not expect a minister to suggest atheism. Do you mean to suggest that no one on MetaFilter should expect to hear theologically-based advice? Because that's what your question seems to imply.
posted by DWRoelands at 11:31 AM on May 4, 2009
Do you mean to suggest that no one on MetaFilter should expect to hear theologically-based advice?
No one on MetaFilter who has specifically asked not to hear theologically-based advice should expect to hear theologically-based advice.
posted by DU at 11:32 AM on May 4, 2009 [3 favorites]
No one on MetaFilter who has specifically asked not to hear theologically-based advice should expect to hear theologically-based advice.
posted by DU at 11:32 AM on May 4, 2009 [3 favorites]
I believe that in the great majority of cases, both are driven by basic compassion and a desire to help another human being in need.
To return to your therapy comparison, there are clear outcomes that medicine defines and, if successful, achieves. Therapy does that, which is why professionals in the mental health field recommend it, when they do recommend it.
The motivation to recommend therapy, even to someone who does not desire to seek it, is based more or less on positive outcomes for, say, 95% of the people who undergo therapy. That is, the goal is to help the patient.
In the case of religion, the person making the recommendation to seek comfort in religious rituals or in a god figure is doing it out of motivation to proselytize. That could even be done with the desire to help someone else, but the primary motivation is proselytism, not about ensuring a desired outcome that is tested, established and rational. Experimentation does not suggest that religious support positively affects health outcomes (example).
If we want to compare apples to apples, suggesting religious rituals to someone who may need medical attention is therefore probably not all that sensible, if the desire is to genuinely help another human being in need. That's why your comparison is wrong.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 11:39 AM on May 4, 2009 [4 favorites]
To return to your therapy comparison, there are clear outcomes that medicine defines and, if successful, achieves. Therapy does that, which is why professionals in the mental health field recommend it, when they do recommend it.
The motivation to recommend therapy, even to someone who does not desire to seek it, is based more or less on positive outcomes for, say, 95% of the people who undergo therapy. That is, the goal is to help the patient.
In the case of religion, the person making the recommendation to seek comfort in religious rituals or in a god figure is doing it out of motivation to proselytize. That could even be done with the desire to help someone else, but the primary motivation is proselytism, not about ensuring a desired outcome that is tested, established and rational. Experimentation does not suggest that religious support positively affects health outcomes (example).
If we want to compare apples to apples, suggesting religious rituals to someone who may need medical attention is therefore probably not all that sensible, if the desire is to genuinely help another human being in need. That's why your comparison is wrong.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 11:39 AM on May 4, 2009 [4 favorites]
Therapy doesn't have a centuries long tradition of repressing people, burning witches, invading other countries who believe differently, general abuses of power and killing people who refuse to convert to it.
In short, religion has baggage and could probably use a bit of therapy
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 11:51 AM on May 4, 2009 [5 favorites]
In short, religion has baggage and could probably use a bit of therapy
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 11:51 AM on May 4, 2009 [5 favorites]
Ok, maybe a lot. Some medication probably wouldn't hurt either.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 11:52 AM on May 4, 2009
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 11:52 AM on May 4, 2009
DWR: First off, I don't know what anyone else thinks, but this seems like just about the perfect way to have brought this issue up, and the perfect tone to have struck with it. You've been responsive, non-combative, and appreciative of the answers you've gotten, and you refrained from any questionable behavior in the thread before bringing it to MeTa, which I think is pretty cool.
1. There is definitely a Christian-unfriendly population on MeFi but that absolutely isn't everybody, and from my experience any opinion which isn't truly hateful or abusive is welcome here. Sometimes that will mean a good number of people who truly hate - not Christianity per se - but the meaning that mainstream Christianity has taken to mean in the U.S. in recent decades, and in particular under the Bush administration, and everything that comes with it. Sometimes that gets more hostile than it needs to, but there are definitely vocal Christians around here (note: I myself am an athiest).
2. To me, the "seek therapy!" answers are a little shaky as well, because of the sort of cult-of-therapy which has grown up around the profession. If it were my question, and I'd specified that therapy wasn't what I was looking for, I would ignore any commentor who had ignored what I asked for in the post.
3. There could be any number of reasons for an OP to request not to have any Western Religion in the answers, especially for something like this. It could be that the OP has been burned by western religion, or is even Judeo-Christian but simply finds religious tales of uplift to be treacly and saccharine. Here, however, we don't have to search far and wide for the answer - the OP simply doesn't believe in God, and isn't going to change his/her mind here. So be it.
4. That doesn't mean that everything is ruled out, as far as your plane of Christian experience is concerned. There are a great many stories of faithful people affecting good with kind-hearted adherence to the tenets of their faith which, at least by certain viewpoints, could be considered secular. So a story about a church getting members together to help members of a picket line until the strike is ultimately successful would probably be okay. A story about girders in the destroyed WTC forming a cross would not.
5. I just hope that nothing here dissuades you from posting more, as your question at the top of the thread shows a great amount of consideration for the site and it's varied membership and community.
posted by Navelgazer at 12:39 PM on May 4, 2009 [3 favorites]
1. There is definitely a Christian-unfriendly population on MeFi but that absolutely isn't everybody, and from my experience any opinion which isn't truly hateful or abusive is welcome here. Sometimes that will mean a good number of people who truly hate - not Christianity per se - but the meaning that mainstream Christianity has taken to mean in the U.S. in recent decades, and in particular under the Bush administration, and everything that comes with it. Sometimes that gets more hostile than it needs to, but there are definitely vocal Christians around here (note: I myself am an athiest).
2. To me, the "seek therapy!" answers are a little shaky as well, because of the sort of cult-of-therapy which has grown up around the profession. If it were my question, and I'd specified that therapy wasn't what I was looking for, I would ignore any commentor who had ignored what I asked for in the post.
3. There could be any number of reasons for an OP to request not to have any Western Religion in the answers, especially for something like this. It could be that the OP has been burned by western religion, or is even Judeo-Christian but simply finds religious tales of uplift to be treacly and saccharine. Here, however, we don't have to search far and wide for the answer - the OP simply doesn't believe in God, and isn't going to change his/her mind here. So be it.
4. That doesn't mean that everything is ruled out, as far as your plane of Christian experience is concerned. There are a great many stories of faithful people affecting good with kind-hearted adherence to the tenets of their faith which, at least by certain viewpoints, could be considered secular. So a story about a church getting members together to help members of a picket line until the strike is ultimately successful would probably be okay. A story about girders in the destroyed WTC forming a cross would not.
5. I just hope that nothing here dissuades you from posting more, as your question at the top of the thread shows a great amount of consideration for the site and it's varied membership and community.
posted by Navelgazer at 12:39 PM on May 4, 2009 [3 favorites]
A lot of questions where therapy is the best answer can be boiled down to this form: "I'm struggling with deep-seating emotional issues that are starting to interfere with my daily life. What can I do about it? Don't say therapy." But the thing is, if your psychological problems are THAT serious, you really don't have other options. Posters aren't suggesting therapy just because it might be a useful option, but instead because there really isn't much of an option beside that. It's like saying, "Dude, yeah, no one likes going to therapy, but there's not really anything else we can suggest."
It's possible to imagine questions where religion would be the right answer for the same sort of reasons: "I'm really interested in how the world is meaningful, and what truth there might be about its nature and origins beyond what we can discover through science and reason. What can I look at to discuss these types of issues? Don't say religion." There... Well, what're we going to say? There really isn't anything BUT religion that can be suggested.
So I think the issue at heart here is whether or not there really are some reasonable means of solving the problem at hand without breaking the OP's requirements. This seems to be a question where there are many, many ways to give the OP advice without ignoring his ban on religion, and so giving religious advice is a bit inappropriate.
posted by Ms. Saint at 12:46 PM on May 4, 2009 [1 favorite]
It's possible to imagine questions where religion would be the right answer for the same sort of reasons: "I'm really interested in how the world is meaningful, and what truth there might be about its nature and origins beyond what we can discover through science and reason. What can I look at to discuss these types of issues? Don't say religion." There... Well, what're we going to say? There really isn't anything BUT religion that can be suggested.
So I think the issue at heart here is whether or not there really are some reasonable means of solving the problem at hand without breaking the OP's requirements. This seems to be a question where there are many, many ways to give the OP advice without ignoring his ban on religion, and so giving religious advice is a bit inappropriate.
posted by Ms. Saint at 12:46 PM on May 4, 2009 [1 favorite]
By the way, I too don't get the whole "Read Vonnegut" advice in that thread. Sure, Vonnegut has some very sweet insights into human nature, but his books can also be insanely depressing. Totally not an author I would turn to purely to be uplifted.
posted by Ms. Saint at 12:48 PM on May 4, 2009
posted by Ms. Saint at 12:48 PM on May 4, 2009
If someone is seeking pet advice and they say "please don't tell me to spay my cat", am I out of line to say "spaying your cat is really the best choice here?" If the person answering genuinely believes that their answer is helpful, does that mitigate the etiquette trespass?
I've put disclaimers like this on questions I've asked (though really, everyone should spay/neuter their pets!) where I ask "please don't tell me [obvious answer here]" for a specific reason - usually the reason being that I know it's the *obvious* answer, but clearly it isn't the right one for my situation or I would have chosen it, given that it's obvious and all.
In this situation, putting in "Spay your cat!" even though *you* believe that it's helpful is going to make the OP bang their head into a wall and question your reading comprehension abilities.
posted by grapefruitmoon at 12:49 PM on May 4, 2009
I've put disclaimers like this on questions I've asked (though really, everyone should spay/neuter their pets!) where I ask "please don't tell me [obvious answer here]" for a specific reason - usually the reason being that I know it's the *obvious* answer, but clearly it isn't the right one for my situation or I would have chosen it, given that it's obvious and all.
In this situation, putting in "Spay your cat!" even though *you* believe that it's helpful is going to make the OP bang their head into a wall and question your reading comprehension abilities.
posted by grapefruitmoon at 12:49 PM on May 4, 2009
(note: I myself am an athiest).
Me, I'm the athiest agnostic ever.
posted by dersins at 12:51 PM on May 4, 2009 [2 favorites]
Me, I'm the athiest agnostic ever.
posted by dersins at 12:51 PM on May 4, 2009 [2 favorites]
I clicked on this question expecting the expression of unease about the poster equating the African continent with 1) one unitary culture 2) that is subhuman 3) and makes a (presumed) Western poster despair for humanity.
Instead it's another navelgazing Christians vs. atheists debate, with cats to boot.
posted by vincele at 12:55 PM on May 4, 2009 [1 favorite]
Instead it's another navelgazing Christians vs. atheists debate, with cats to boot.
posted by vincele at 12:55 PM on May 4, 2009 [1 favorite]
Me, I'm the athiest agnostic ever.
Heh. Yeah, sorry about the typo.
Instead it's another navelgazing Christians vs. atheists debate, with cats to boot.
What the hell'd I ever do to you!?
kidding
posted by Navelgazer at 1:05 PM on May 4, 2009
Heh. Yeah, sorry about the typo.
Instead it's another navelgazing Christians vs. atheists debate, with cats to boot.
What the hell'd I ever do to you!?
kidding
posted by Navelgazer at 1:05 PM on May 4, 2009
What the hell'd I ever do to you!?
for starters, stop gazing at my navel.
posted by needled at 1:16 PM on May 4, 2009
for starters, stop gazing at my navel.
posted by needled at 1:16 PM on May 4, 2009
but the primary motivation is proselytism,
That's hooey, Blazecock. I get that you hate Christianity but don't make shit up.
(not Christian but from a religious family who could care less if you convert.)
posted by small_ruminant at 1:19 PM on May 4, 2009 [2 favorites]
That's hooey, Blazecock. I get that you hate Christianity but don't make shit up.
(not Christian but from a religious family who could care less if you convert.)
posted by small_ruminant at 1:19 PM on May 4, 2009 [2 favorites]
Therapy doesn't have a centuries long tradition of repressing people, burning witches, invading other countries who believe differently, general abuses of power and killing people who refuse to convert to it.
So tell me: how does this cat o' nine tails make you feel?
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 1:19 PM on May 4, 2009
So tell me: how does this cat o' nine tails make you feel?
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 1:19 PM on May 4, 2009
We can't all save everybody from everything.
That's a great point, and can be turned slightly: AskMe isn't the place for every question, or answer. I've found questions where I thought I could help but didn't want to post in the thread, for one reason or another. One alternative is to turn on MeMail and answer the question privately, avoiding the problem of derailment.
posted by cribcage at 1:22 PM on May 4, 2009
That's a great point, and can be turned slightly: AskMe isn't the place for every question, or answer. I've found questions where I thought I could help but didn't want to post in the thread, for one reason or another. One alternative is to turn on MeMail and answer the question privately, avoiding the problem of derailment.
posted by cribcage at 1:22 PM on May 4, 2009
I clicked on this question expecting the expression of unease about the poster equating the African continent with 1) one unitary culture 2) that is subhuman 3) and makes a (presumed) Western poster despair for humanity.
Perhaps you should go provide an answer to the question along the lines of "educate yourself more about Africa, and here's how to do it." I sure as hell don't see any purpose in complaining about the ignorance you perceive in the asker on MetaTalk, other than trying to get the question deleted, which certainly isn't going to help the asker any.
posted by Caduceus at 1:26 PM on May 4, 2009
Perhaps you should go provide an answer to the question along the lines of "educate yourself more about Africa, and here's how to do it." I sure as hell don't see any purpose in complaining about the ignorance you perceive in the asker on MetaTalk, other than trying to get the question deleted, which certainly isn't going to help the asker any.
posted by Caduceus at 1:26 PM on May 4, 2009
Therapy doesn't have a centuries long tradition of repressing people, burning witches, invading other countries who believe differently, general abuses of power and killing people who refuse to convert to it.
One can argue that men do. That doesn't mean demonizing all men is reasonable. Using histories of specific sects to blackguard every western religion isn't reasonable either. I'm not coming up with a lot of belief systems that come out pure as the driven snow. Even Buddhism has a pretty nasty history.
That said, to answer the OP's original question, unless you can answer using DU's model:
A bad answer to my question would be: "Try Buddhism!"
A good answer to my question might be: "You aren't suffering because you don't have $X, you are suffering because you want $X. Try being content with what you do have."
I'd recommend staying out of the thread altogether.
posted by small_ruminant at 1:30 PM on May 4, 2009 [1 favorite]
One can argue that men do. That doesn't mean demonizing all men is reasonable. Using histories of specific sects to blackguard every western religion isn't reasonable either. I'm not coming up with a lot of belief systems that come out pure as the driven snow. Even Buddhism has a pretty nasty history.
That said, to answer the OP's original question, unless you can answer using DU's model:
A bad answer to my question would be: "Try Buddhism!"
A good answer to my question might be: "You aren't suffering because you don't have $X, you are suffering because you want $X. Try being content with what you do have."
I'd recommend staying out of the thread altogether.
posted by small_ruminant at 1:30 PM on May 4, 2009 [1 favorite]
grapefruitmoon : usually the reason being that I know it's the *obvious* answer, but clearly it isn't the right one for my situation or I would have chosen it, given that it's obvious and all.
On top of this excellent answer, I'd think that another problem with suggesting something potentially contentious to a thread were the asker has explicitly stated that don't want information on a topic is that it could very well lead to a massive derail where people are discussing the appropriateness of the answer instead of answering the question itself.
In some cases, the asker may simply be trying to prevent another flare up of the old animosities that rear their heads here now and again.
And it doesn't have to be religion based: we've seen this with Israel/ Palestine, Mac/ PC, Pro Choice/ Pro Life, Dogs/ Cats, Ninjas/ Pirates. Some topic just bring out people's fighty impulses and a questioner might not want to wade through all that for a best answer.
posted by quin at 1:34 PM on May 4, 2009
On top of this excellent answer, I'd think that another problem with suggesting something potentially contentious to a thread were the asker has explicitly stated that don't want information on a topic is that it could very well lead to a massive derail where people are discussing the appropriateness of the answer instead of answering the question itself.
In some cases, the asker may simply be trying to prevent another flare up of the old animosities that rear their heads here now and again.
And it doesn't have to be religion based: we've seen this with Israel/ Palestine, Mac/ PC, Pro Choice/ Pro Life, Dogs/ Cats, Ninjas/ Pirates. Some topic just bring out people's fighty impulses and a questioner might not want to wade through all that for a best answer.
posted by quin at 1:34 PM on May 4, 2009
"Ninjas" is always the correct answer.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 1:37 PM on May 4, 2009 [2 favorites]
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 1:37 PM on May 4, 2009 [2 favorites]
this seems like just about the perfect way to have brought this issue up, and the perfect tone to have struck with it. You've been responsive, non-combative, and appreciative of the answers you've gotten, and you refrained from any questionable behavior in the thread before bringing it to MeTa, which I think is pretty cool.
Seconded. As you can see from this very thread, there are vocal members who can't resist posting annoying anti-religion/LOLXIAN comments on every conceivable occasion, but as others have said, they don't represent the site.
posted by languagehat at 1:40 PM on May 4, 2009
Seconded. As you can see from this very thread, there are vocal members who can't resist posting annoying anti-religion/LOLXIAN comments on every conceivable occasion, but as others have said, they don't represent the site.
posted by languagehat at 1:40 PM on May 4, 2009
I think the fundamental difference is that once you start talking about faith there isn't really much room to maneuver. The reason that DWRoelands' examples are all different than the case in point is because the OP ruled out the thing upon which Christianity being useful is predicated. In the other examples, the therapy and the spaying, the issue is whether or not a known practical solution might be the best one. Christianity may be very practical in this type of situation, but suggesting it to someone who has no faith would be a bit like suggesting spaying to someone without a pet.
(Various modalities sometimes called "therapy" have a long and illustrious history as instruments of social control.)
posted by OmieWise at 1:42 PM on May 4, 2009 [1 favorite]
(Various modalities sometimes called "therapy" have a long and illustrious history as instruments of social control.)
posted by OmieWise at 1:42 PM on May 4, 2009 [1 favorite]
No, they don't. They represent the LOL a Pope guild.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 1:42 PM on May 4, 2009 [5 favorites]
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 1:42 PM on May 4, 2009 [5 favorites]
Metafilter, as a website is not a unfriendly place for Christians. There are many members who do seem to take particular glee in bashing Christianity or ridiculing it in one way or another. As was pointed out above, there are some members who simply have no toleration for Christianity as espoused by certain political figures and denominations.
That said, the Christian's place on Metafilter, my opinion, is not to try proselytize, but to simply be a good representative of our faith. People, like the AskMe poster, who do not want to listen, won't hear you if you try, and as Brandon put it, no one likes being force fed something that they've been told is good for them. By representative, I believe it means being willing to stand firm to your convictions, to offer fair, unheated responses to attacks, but certainly never picking a fight when one isn't needed.
Be knowledgeable of your faith, because knowledge applied well is a hallmark for admiration around here (see Pater Aletheias).
Going to your post, rather than knock on the door uninvited, it's better to simply be yourself and hopefully, that'll lead folks to knocking on your door.
I don't know if the above will be helpful, DRWRoelands, but it's how I view things and try to do my best to be a good Christian and a productive member of Metafilter.
posted by Atreides at 1:45 PM on May 4, 2009
That said, the Christian's place on Metafilter, my opinion, is not to try proselytize, but to simply be a good representative of our faith. People, like the AskMe poster, who do not want to listen, won't hear you if you try, and as Brandon put it, no one likes being force fed something that they've been told is good for them. By representative, I believe it means being willing to stand firm to your convictions, to offer fair, unheated responses to attacks, but certainly never picking a fight when one isn't needed.
Be knowledgeable of your faith, because knowledge applied well is a hallmark for admiration around here (see Pater Aletheias).
Going to your post, rather than knock on the door uninvited, it's better to simply be yourself and hopefully, that'll lead folks to knocking on your door.
I don't know if the above will be helpful, DRWRoelands, but it's how I view things and try to do my best to be a good Christian and a productive member of Metafilter.
posted by Atreides at 1:45 PM on May 4, 2009
Screw therapy. Dianetics is where it's at!
posted by ericb at 1:52 PM on May 4, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by ericb at 1:52 PM on May 4, 2009 [1 favorite]
One can argue that men do. .
You certainly can, if you want play semantic antics and move the goalposts so we're that we're longer talking about religion or therapy, but humans too.
Using histories of specific sects to blackguard every western religion isn't reasonable either.
Using religious history to explain why some people are not interested in hearing religious answers is quite reasonable.
I don't understand what're you trying to argue here. The question is about giving advice based on western religious when the person specifically requested no advice based on western religions. Therapy was used as an example of advice given when the OP sometimes requests no therapy advice. Therapy and religion are generally different and can't be used interchangeably.
Then you go and say "Hey, mankind has a spotty history, but demonizing all men is unreasonable" That's so vague and overly broad that I can't help but wonder what your point is.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 1:53 PM on May 4, 2009
You certainly can, if you want play semantic antics and move the goalposts so we're that we're longer talking about religion or therapy, but humans too.
Using histories of specific sects to blackguard every western religion isn't reasonable either.
Using religious history to explain why some people are not interested in hearing religious answers is quite reasonable.
I don't understand what're you trying to argue here. The question is about giving advice based on western religious when the person specifically requested no advice based on western religions. Therapy was used as an example of advice given when the OP sometimes requests no therapy advice. Therapy and religion are generally different and can't be used interchangeably.
Then you go and say "Hey, mankind has a spotty history, but demonizing all men is unreasonable" That's so vague and overly broad that I can't help but wonder what your point is.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 1:53 PM on May 4, 2009
No, they don't. They represent the LOL a Pope guild.
BANNED
posted by cortex (staff) at 1:58 PM on May 4, 2009 [1 favorite]
BANNED
posted by cortex (staff) at 1:58 PM on May 4, 2009 [1 favorite]
I clicked on this question expecting the expression of unease about the poster equating the African continent with 1) one unitary culture 2) that is subhuman 3) and makes a (presumed) Western poster despair for humanity.
Except that the poster doesn't do any of those things.
Saying "... out of the African continent" is shorter than "... out of the varied currently- and recently-troubled areas of Africa, such as Darfur, Congo, C.A.R., Zimbabwe, etc." That's not saying that Africa is reducible to one culture.
He doesn't say Africa is subhuman or an Other. He repeatedly says 'we': "... my immediate response is that, as a species, we simply don't deserve to exist.", "... in the face of what we're capable of doing to each other, we do have some redeeming characteristics." We. Not They.
It's not only Africa that's making him despair for humanity, he's giving that as a general example. The article that he gives as a specific example talks a lot about Africa, but also mentions Bosnia and Colombia. He specifically says "World current affairs". His despair and question would still apply if pan-African peace settled overnight and England erupted into brutal civil war.
posted by CKmtl at 2:12 PM on May 4, 2009
Except that the poster doesn't do any of those things.
Saying "... out of the African continent" is shorter than "... out of the varied currently- and recently-troubled areas of Africa, such as Darfur, Congo, C.A.R., Zimbabwe, etc." That's not saying that Africa is reducible to one culture.
He doesn't say Africa is subhuman or an Other. He repeatedly says 'we': "... my immediate response is that, as a species, we simply don't deserve to exist.", "... in the face of what we're capable of doing to each other, we do have some redeeming characteristics." We. Not They.
It's not only Africa that's making him despair for humanity, he's giving that as a general example. The article that he gives as a specific example talks a lot about Africa, but also mentions Bosnia and Colombia. He specifically says "World current affairs". His despair and question would still apply if pan-African peace settled overnight and England erupted into brutal civil war.
posted by CKmtl at 2:12 PM on May 4, 2009
MeTa: the therapy and the spaying
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 2:14 PM on May 4, 2009 [3 favorites]
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 2:14 PM on May 4, 2009 [3 favorites]
You know, DWR, there's a reason people (generally American) get all hostile about Christianity, but not so much other belief systems. I will give you a personal anecdote that I think applies to many people in this country:
Nearly every single person in my extended family is somewhere between pretty religious and outright fanatical. They have proseltyzed at me endlessly my entire life and continue to do so with my children despite my objections. They refuse to respect my beliefs because their religion demands my conversion. In addition to this: without flaw, every single one of them holds political beliefs completely antithetical to my own -- political beliefs that, again, their church demands they hold. And I grew up in the SF Bay Area, that supposed mecca of Liberal, atheist heathens.
There's a sense of entitlement Christians in the US have, which comes, I think, from having their religion be so thoroughly dominant in every single aspect of our culture and legal system. But what really makes it infuriating is how put out Christians act when someone says, simply, "I am not Christian." As if the 2% atheist demographic is somehow oppressing Christianity by simply thinking something different. It is maddening.
Now, your tone has been very fair and civil, and I think that's great, but there's still a bit of this coming across to me, just based on the existence of this thread. I think it's a bit disingenuous to compare cat spaying/therapy hypotheticals to this situation, and I suspect you realize this despite the civility.
I don't know the asker at all, but there's a better-than-fair chance they were already raised Christian, you see. How do you know they weren't more religious than you before arriving at their current belief system? If they are from the United States -- a country which boasts an 80-85% Christian demographic -- what makes you think they haven't heard it before, repeatedly? The main reason people put "I do not want to hear about _____" in their questions is because they already know it won't be helpful to them. The very fact that you feel this is "hostile to Christianity" says more about why you should avoid posting it despite their objections.
Look, I have nothing against Christians as long as they don't tell me I should believe it too. The problem is, Christians have a really bad record as far as that goes. That's where the hostility comes from. But it's not so much hostility as it is, "in this little corner of the world where it's safe to do so, would you please not try to convert me". It doesn't seem a lot to ask from a group that is the de-facto official religion of the free world.
posted by cj_ at 2:14 PM on May 4, 2009 [14 favorites]
Nearly every single person in my extended family is somewhere between pretty religious and outright fanatical. They have proseltyzed at me endlessly my entire life and continue to do so with my children despite my objections. They refuse to respect my beliefs because their religion demands my conversion. In addition to this: without flaw, every single one of them holds political beliefs completely antithetical to my own -- political beliefs that, again, their church demands they hold. And I grew up in the SF Bay Area, that supposed mecca of Liberal, atheist heathens.
There's a sense of entitlement Christians in the US have, which comes, I think, from having their religion be so thoroughly dominant in every single aspect of our culture and legal system. But what really makes it infuriating is how put out Christians act when someone says, simply, "I am not Christian." As if the 2% atheist demographic is somehow oppressing Christianity by simply thinking something different. It is maddening.
Now, your tone has been very fair and civil, and I think that's great, but there's still a bit of this coming across to me, just based on the existence of this thread. I think it's a bit disingenuous to compare cat spaying/therapy hypotheticals to this situation, and I suspect you realize this despite the civility.
I don't know the asker at all, but there's a better-than-fair chance they were already raised Christian, you see. How do you know they weren't more religious than you before arriving at their current belief system? If they are from the United States -- a country which boasts an 80-85% Christian demographic -- what makes you think they haven't heard it before, repeatedly? The main reason people put "I do not want to hear about _____" in their questions is because they already know it won't be helpful to them. The very fact that you feel this is "hostile to Christianity" says more about why you should avoid posting it despite their objections.
Look, I have nothing against Christians as long as they don't tell me I should believe it too. The problem is, Christians have a really bad record as far as that goes. That's where the hostility comes from. But it's not so much hostility as it is, "in this little corner of the world where it's safe to do so, would you please not try to convert me". It doesn't seem a lot to ask from a group that is the de-facto official religion of the free world.
posted by cj_ at 2:14 PM on May 4, 2009 [14 favorites]
I guess that actually comes across as pretty hostile, heh. It's just that the whole "wo is me, only 98% of Americans are religious instead of 100%, and I seem to have found where they all hang out, I am so oppressed" stuff is so fucking tiresome, even when you are all nice and stuff about it. Let it go.
posted by cj_ at 2:20 PM on May 4, 2009
posted by cj_ at 2:20 PM on May 4, 2009
That's hooey, Blazecock. I get that you hate Christianity but don't make shit up.
Here's your hooey right back at you. I didn't say anything about Christianity until you brought it up. I said, very clearly, "organized religion". And it applies.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 2:43 PM on May 4, 2009
Here's your hooey right back at you. I didn't say anything about Christianity until you brought it up. I said, very clearly, "organized religion". And it applies.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 2:43 PM on May 4, 2009
Perhaps you should go provide an answer to the question along the lines of "educate yourself more about Africa, and here's how to do it." I sure as hell don't see any purpose in complaining about the ignorance you perceive in the asker on MetaTalk, other than trying to get the question deleted, which certainly isn't going to help the asker any.
If I gave that answer in Askme it would be deleted and rightly so. I don't care if the question is deleted or not. I'm just expressing what I thought when I opened this thread-- that it brought out the Christians and atheists in fighting colors with cat spaying sprinkled in for good measure. This is the right place to do it instead of shitting in the thread.
It's not only Africa that's making him despair for humanity, he's giving that as a general example.
CKtml, I respectfully disagree with your interpretation. General examples often reveal something about our perspectives, especially when Africa is used as a stand in for the bulk of atrocities in this world.
posted by vincele at 3:57 PM on May 4, 2009
If I gave that answer in Askme it would be deleted and rightly so. I don't care if the question is deleted or not. I'm just expressing what I thought when I opened this thread-- that it brought out the Christians and atheists in fighting colors with cat spaying sprinkled in for good measure. This is the right place to do it instead of shitting in the thread.
It's not only Africa that's making him despair for humanity, he's giving that as a general example.
CKtml, I respectfully disagree with your interpretation. General examples often reveal something about our perspectives, especially when Africa is used as a stand in for the bulk of atrocities in this world.
posted by vincele at 3:57 PM on May 4, 2009
Nearly every single person in my extended family is somewhere between pretty religious and outright fanatical. They have proseltyzed at me endlessly my entire life and continue to do so with my children despite my objections. They refuse to respect my beliefs because their religion demands my conversion.
This sounds like a problem with your family, not with Christians as some sort of hypothetical monolithic entity. As a counterexample, my mother is a UCC minister, and has never once proselytized to me or my brother or refused to respect our beliefs-- which beliefs could charitably be described as agnostic at best.
It would really be super awesome if people would stop painting all Christians with the same crazy-fundy-evangelist brush.
posted by dersins at 4:16 PM on May 4, 2009 [9 favorites]
This sounds like a problem with your family, not with Christians as some sort of hypothetical monolithic entity. As a counterexample, my mother is a UCC minister, and has never once proselytized to me or my brother or refused to respect our beliefs-- which beliefs could charitably be described as agnostic at best.
It would really be super awesome if people would stop painting all Christians with the same crazy-fundy-evangelist brush.
posted by dersins at 4:16 PM on May 4, 2009 [9 favorites]
When someone says "I don't want to hear 'therapy', 'Jesus', 'lawyer', 'doctor', 'scientist', or whatever, I'm looking for actual fucking information, please" and the whole thread turns into "Why? I don't see that. You need to reconsider. Those people are the experts! They have helped millions! That's what they're there for!" it insults the person's intelligence. It's bad form, either way.
posted by metastability at 4:16 PM on May 4, 2009 [3 favorites]
posted by metastability at 4:16 PM on May 4, 2009 [3 favorites]
HEY METAFILTER, Forest on the right, trees on the left please.
You're getting confused.
Ignore the theological part of this discussion. Throw it out. Abandon it.
This question is flawed in its very premise, and it makes me somewhere between mad and sad, as much for the answers as the question.
The question basically says "Without actually doing something, how can I stop caring about something."
I've asked questions before and given parameters for answers, as have lots of us. So it goes. (see, vonnegut is everywhere.) That's not the crux of this issue. I can't even describe how this question doesn't even make SENSE to me, I'm stuck in a reset loop where I keep typing responses and deleting them.
The answers of "If it's ugly, don't look at it" scream of something to me...something angry and dark and makes-me-want-to-scream. "If the news upsets you, don't watch it." What? WHAT?
I don't even care if you do something with your life, any of you. OP included. But I will say that it's sad for me when a post basically asking how to ignore your conscience gets answers that basically encourage the OP to turn it off.
Anyone can go on all night arguing the semantics of comparison, but in my book, if you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem. So in that regard this question resonates like this to me:
"I was playing football with my kid, and he fell and broke his arm. His screams keep me awake at night. How can I sleep without narcotics, because I don't want to fail my drug test?"
The answers, for the most part, "put a pillow on his face", "wear earplugs", "turn up the music and pay attention to it instead." etc ad infinitum.
Forest, trees. Welcome to metafilter.
Again, no offense to the OP or anyone else. I have high expectations for people, in my very specific worldview where nothing gets better until everyone gives a shit.
posted by TomMelee at 5:58 PM on May 4, 2009 [3 favorites]
You're getting confused.
Ignore the theological part of this discussion. Throw it out. Abandon it.
This question is flawed in its very premise, and it makes me somewhere between mad and sad, as much for the answers as the question.
The question basically says "Without actually doing something, how can I stop caring about something."
I've asked questions before and given parameters for answers, as have lots of us. So it goes. (see, vonnegut is everywhere.) That's not the crux of this issue. I can't even describe how this question doesn't even make SENSE to me, I'm stuck in a reset loop where I keep typing responses and deleting them.
The answers of "If it's ugly, don't look at it" scream of something to me...something angry and dark and makes-me-want-to-scream. "If the news upsets you, don't watch it." What? WHAT?
I don't even care if you do something with your life, any of you. OP included. But I will say that it's sad for me when a post basically asking how to ignore your conscience gets answers that basically encourage the OP to turn it off.
Anyone can go on all night arguing the semantics of comparison, but in my book, if you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem. So in that regard this question resonates like this to me:
"I was playing football with my kid, and he fell and broke his arm. His screams keep me awake at night. How can I sleep without narcotics, because I don't want to fail my drug test?"
The answers, for the most part, "put a pillow on his face", "wear earplugs", "turn up the music and pay attention to it instead." etc ad infinitum.
Forest, trees. Welcome to metafilter.
Again, no offense to the OP or anyone else. I have high expectations for people, in my very specific worldview where nothing gets better until everyone gives a shit.
posted by TomMelee at 5:58 PM on May 4, 2009 [3 favorites]
If there is any one place on the internet at which I'm comfortable with people silently acknowledging the forest (with a slight and congenial nod, perhaps, on the way into the thread) before getting down to the business of attending directly to those trees they've all more or less gathered to discuss, it is Metatalk.
To put it another, terribly rendered way, telling folks here that they're missing the forest for the trees is missing the knowing-the-forest-is-there-but-having-a-tree-related-discussion-anyway for the erroneously-thinking-the-forest-has-been-missed-for-the-trees.
posted by cortex (staff) at 6:04 PM on May 4, 2009 [1 favorite]
To put it another, terribly rendered way, telling folks here that they're missing the forest for the trees is missing the knowing-the-forest-is-there-but-having-a-tree-related-discussion-anyway for the erroneously-thinking-the-forest-has-been-missed-for-the-trees.
posted by cortex (staff) at 6:04 PM on May 4, 2009 [1 favorite]
To put it less politely, if you honestly think your horse is higher and your heart bleeds more than the average Mefite's, you haven't really been paying attention.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 6:07 PM on May 4, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 6:07 PM on May 4, 2009 [1 favorite]
Point taken, IRFH and cortex, basically I just don't like this metatalk on this thread and want it to go another direction, specifically away from the flameworthy theological side and more to the "lets address the question" side.
I tend away from thinking my way is best, in fact I often think the opposite. However, in this case, yes, I'm right when I say that apathy to the solution when the problem is recognized is worse than ignorance of the problem.
Oh noes, how unenlightened of me.
posted by TomMelee at 6:38 PM on May 4, 2009
I tend away from thinking my way is best, in fact I often think the opposite. However, in this case, yes, I'm right when I say that apathy to the solution when the problem is recognized is worse than ignorance of the problem.
Oh noes, how unenlightened of me.
posted by TomMelee at 6:38 PM on May 4, 2009
It's just that it feels an awful lot like you stormed in here late and said "shame on you all for sucking so much that you don't even know you should be discussing the aspect of all this that I find interesting", which is a pretty crappy way to join a conversation. Following it up with "yes, yes, but I am correct" isn't really making things any better.
You would have been fine if you'd swapped out all the "HEY METAFILTER FOREST TREES WHY DON'T YOU GIVE A SHIT" stuff for something like "what really struck me about this was...". Same overall content, same adding-your-angle-to-the-discussion goal achieved, none of the "you all suck and here's why" stuff that makes it really, really hard for people to care about the substance of your comment.
posted by cortex (staff) at 6:49 PM on May 4, 2009 [1 favorite]
You would have been fine if you'd swapped out all the "HEY METAFILTER FOREST TREES WHY DON'T YOU GIVE A SHIT" stuff for something like "what really struck me about this was...". Same overall content, same adding-your-angle-to-the-discussion goal achieved, none of the "you all suck and here's why" stuff that makes it really, really hard for people to care about the substance of your comment.
posted by cortex (staff) at 6:49 PM on May 4, 2009 [1 favorite]
apathy to the solution when the problem is recognized is worse than ignorance of the problem.
Maybe I'm being overly literal here but unless you're saying the OPs problem is clearly lack-of-religion and we're all not telling her because she asked us not to then I don't understand your point. People are talking about how no, therapy and religion in this case are not interchangeable, and neither are a lot of other things.
The basic answer, as I stated above, is that it's okay to say something the OP specifically asked you not to but you have to be careful and a little self-reflective before doing that. The issue with giving a shit is that I could, perhaps be so into giving a shit about yoga and how it cured my neck pain that I ignored the fact that the OP said "please don't give me yoga advice" for her neck pain question and I try to yammer on about yoga in an insensitive way. That's what we'd like to avoid.
Yoga devotees sometimes don't know they're coming across as crazy yoga fanatics until someone tells them (to stretch a metaphor and use an example that hopefully won't bother anyone at MeFi) in a polite and considerate way. That is, I think the way we're trying to slice this particular onion here.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 6:50 PM on May 4, 2009
Maybe I'm being overly literal here but unless you're saying the OPs problem is clearly lack-of-religion and we're all not telling her because she asked us not to then I don't understand your point. People are talking about how no, therapy and religion in this case are not interchangeable, and neither are a lot of other things.
The basic answer, as I stated above, is that it's okay to say something the OP specifically asked you not to but you have to be careful and a little self-reflective before doing that. The issue with giving a shit is that I could, perhaps be so into giving a shit about yoga and how it cured my neck pain that I ignored the fact that the OP said "please don't give me yoga advice" for her neck pain question and I try to yammer on about yoga in an insensitive way. That's what we'd like to avoid.
Yoga devotees sometimes don't know they're coming across as crazy yoga fanatics until someone tells them (to stretch a metaphor and use an example that hopefully won't bother anyone at MeFi) in a polite and considerate way. That is, I think the way we're trying to slice this particular onion here.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 6:50 PM on May 4, 2009
I have high expectations for people, in my very specific worldview where nothing gets better until everyone gives a shit.
I strongly suggest you read the first paragraph of the link in the original post.
Caring isn't the issue. Instead, the OP has been looking too much at the negative side of things and needs to be shown some of the more positive sides of humanity, which is perfectly understandable if you cared enough to read the link the person provided.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 7:01 PM on May 4, 2009
I strongly suggest you read the first paragraph of the link in the original post.
Caring isn't the issue. Instead, the OP has been looking too much at the negative side of things and needs to be shown some of the more positive sides of humanity, which is perfectly understandable if you cared enough to read the link the person provided.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 7:01 PM on May 4, 2009
Fine and fair and points taken. I was actually trying to be a little tongue-in-cheek with my post here on talk, but I can see that my point was pretty well obfuscated in the noise of my fervor.
I posted here because I just posted a MT thread a couple weeks ago about the content of and responses to a question (I realize nobody really cares that much about what I think), and because I thought two different MT threads about one post wasn't warranted. For the record, my issue (and it's not even an issue, my sticking point) isn't the caveats placed upon potential answers, but rather how disingenuous it is to me to ask a question about what to read to feel better about humanity, and about the disconnect there with answers basically saying "ignore it."
So, jessamyn--no, that's not what I'm saying at all, and I fully agree with everything you said. Cortex, I'm sorry my tone wasn't clearer, and if I offended your sensibilities. Brandon, I did read the OP's question before I answered it, and I fully realize that the OP has no shortage of caring, in my post there and here I simply encourage action to accompany outrage, as they play so well together.
I realize that I fail at sensitivity, and I should try harder with that. S'hard though, with (generalization here), so many folks holding the attitude that it's better to ignore injustice than bleed for it. Speaking of course of answers in the question, NOT to the OP.
posted by TomMelee at 8:24 PM on May 4, 2009
I posted here because I just posted a MT thread a couple weeks ago about the content of and responses to a question (I realize nobody really cares that much about what I think), and because I thought two different MT threads about one post wasn't warranted. For the record, my issue (and it's not even an issue, my sticking point) isn't the caveats placed upon potential answers, but rather how disingenuous it is to me to ask a question about what to read to feel better about humanity, and about the disconnect there with answers basically saying "ignore it."
So, jessamyn--no, that's not what I'm saying at all, and I fully agree with everything you said. Cortex, I'm sorry my tone wasn't clearer, and if I offended your sensibilities. Brandon, I did read the OP's question before I answered it, and I fully realize that the OP has no shortage of caring, in my post there and here I simply encourage action to accompany outrage, as they play so well together.
I realize that I fail at sensitivity, and I should try harder with that. S'hard though, with (generalization here), so many folks holding the attitude that it's better to ignore injustice than bleed for it. Speaking of course of answers in the question, NOT to the OP.
posted by TomMelee at 8:24 PM on May 4, 2009
> This sounds like a problem with your family, not with Christians as some sort of hypothetical monolithic entity.
Fair enough, which is why I said it was an anecdote. I realize not every single person is the victim of proseyltizing family members. But I don't think it's a stretch to imagine that many of the people who get their hackles up about the subject are.
But, you know, it's not just my family. Depending on which poll you believe, 75-85% of the United States are Christian, and our supposedly secular government just spent the past eight years commiting Christian dogma to policy with alarming frequency. Christianity is thoroughly entrenched in every level of culture in the United States, and it does strike me as ridiculous when the least repressed demographic in the entire world starts in with the "help! help! I'm being repressed!" crying every time they come across someone who has a different belief and has the nerve to say so.
I find it ironic that I have to explain this when the National Day Of Prayer is coming up in three days.
posted by cj_ at 8:50 PM on May 4, 2009 [1 favorite]
Fair enough, which is why I said it was an anecdote. I realize not every single person is the victim of proseyltizing family members. But I don't think it's a stretch to imagine that many of the people who get their hackles up about the subject are.
But, you know, it's not just my family. Depending on which poll you believe, 75-85% of the United States are Christian, and our supposedly secular government just spent the past eight years commiting Christian dogma to policy with alarming frequency. Christianity is thoroughly entrenched in every level of culture in the United States, and it does strike me as ridiculous when the least repressed demographic in the entire world starts in with the "help! help! I'm being repressed!" crying every time they come across someone who has a different belief and has the nerve to say so.
I find it ironic that I have to explain this when the National Day Of Prayer is coming up in three days.
posted by cj_ at 8:50 PM on May 4, 2009 [1 favorite]
Even if I scream bloody rage and charge into battle in order to bleed for justice, TomMelee, there is still going to be more injustice in other battles that I, a single mortal, will never have the capacity to charge into.
In other words, I'm not sure you acknowledge the difference between "I am focusing too much on the bad in life" and "I am aware of problems that I can but have not fixed." Just because the first is true does not in any way mean that the second is.
posted by Ms. Saint at 8:52 PM on May 4, 2009 [1 favorite]
In other words, I'm not sure you acknowledge the difference between "I am focusing too much on the bad in life" and "I am aware of problems that I can but have not fixed." Just because the first is true does not in any way mean that the second is.
posted by Ms. Saint at 8:52 PM on May 4, 2009 [1 favorite]
Cortex, I'm sorry my tone wasn't clearer, and if I offended your sensibilities.
May I take this opportunity to make two brief points about the practice of apologizing? Thank you.
1) Conditional apologies are lame. Don't be sorry 'if'; that makes it sound like you are unconvinced that you did anything wrong, or perhaps that you are unsure whether an apology is required. Be sorry 'that' instead of 'if'; in the unlucky event that you did not actually do anything wrong, or that an apology was not required, the resulting explosion of unnecessary courtesy and other-orientedness will win friends and influence people, and add goodness to the world.
2) Your apology should not hedge against your own personal responsibility by suggesting that your behavior was only inappropriate relative to a particular context. While this is nearly always true, it is uncouth to point it out. In the case at hand, don't apologize for "offending your sensibilities"; this suggests that cortex's sensibilities bear some responsibility for the situation-"If only cortex had better sensibilities!", one might think. Instead, apologize for being offensive. No one will resent you for taking more responsibility than you might rightfully bear.
Observe theory into practice: TomMelee, I am sorry that I used your apology as a hobby horse for ranting about the etiquette of apologizing. Your apology seems to me to be sincere and heartfelt, and as such did not warrant my critical exposition, except insofar as I am indulging myself at your expense.
This has been your Monday Miss Manners Moment.
posted by Kwine at 9:06 PM on May 4, 2009 [13 favorites]
May I take this opportunity to make two brief points about the practice of apologizing? Thank you.
1) Conditional apologies are lame. Don't be sorry 'if'; that makes it sound like you are unconvinced that you did anything wrong, or perhaps that you are unsure whether an apology is required. Be sorry 'that' instead of 'if'; in the unlucky event that you did not actually do anything wrong, or that an apology was not required, the resulting explosion of unnecessary courtesy and other-orientedness will win friends and influence people, and add goodness to the world.
2) Your apology should not hedge against your own personal responsibility by suggesting that your behavior was only inappropriate relative to a particular context. While this is nearly always true, it is uncouth to point it out. In the case at hand, don't apologize for "offending your sensibilities"; this suggests that cortex's sensibilities bear some responsibility for the situation-"If only cortex had better sensibilities!", one might think. Instead, apologize for being offensive. No one will resent you for taking more responsibility than you might rightfully bear.
Observe theory into practice: TomMelee, I am sorry that I used your apology as a hobby horse for ranting about the etiquette of apologizing. Your apology seems to me to be sincere and heartfelt, and as such did not warrant my critical exposition, except insofar as I am indulging myself at your expense.
This has been your Monday Miss Manners Moment.
posted by Kwine at 9:06 PM on May 4, 2009 [13 favorites]
I'm always interested by the the need for a poster to set limits on acceptable and unacceptable options, for whatever reason, and how much that personally and irrationally rubs me the wrong way.
I've been in several career counseling situations with a woman (often it's a woman, not always) who's husband/family members are emotionally blackmailing her around what are and are not 'acceptable' employment options for her. In one case, she was smart as a whip, ambitious, but her husband had needs, and basically her told her that her career really just couldn't get in the way of those needs. One of his needs was that she be in a position where she was often emotionally and physically available, because his career was demanding.
So she was trying to negotiate and contort herself around these demands, and asking for my help as a career counselor to do so. Basically she started the conversation with something like: "Leaving him is not an option, so help me find another job that fits his criteria." And I remember struggling with this, wanting to withhold my help, wanting to shake her into her senses. I imagined being her sassy black friend who said "You don't need another job - what you NEED is another man, Or in this case, an actual adult, and not this sorry ass life fucker, as you seem to have hitched your shiny wagon to his grubby little black hole". In fact, I probably did tune out for a nanosecond and did say this to her, in my head, as she was explaining his parameters of "acceptable" work.
And then I realized that I had a choice - to help her, or not to. But she didn't come for the extra serving of judgment, so I needed to just shut up about that, and pay attention to the help she did want. In the end I remember sharing with her why this was so hard for me: that it broke my heart to see someone try to break her like that, and it sounded like that was what he was trying to do. And by helping her, I felt like I was helping him hurt her, and I didn't want to help him do that, so if she ever wanted to talk about the wider spectrum of options here, I'd be there. Then we got down to finding her 'suitable' employment.
It's kind of difficult when people ask for advice that just seems to lead to more hell for them, or limit themselves to acceptable and unacceptable options up front. But there also seems to be a mean kind of sharp edge to mefis who see red when posters have set those parameters. I've just decided that if I can't fit into those parameters, then a little mauve light comes on in my head that says "NOTMYQUESTION"
So these days if I see a posting from a law student who says: "I'm miserable, physically ill, terrified that my lack of knowledge will get someone wrongly incarcerated, I hate the hours and being in confrontational situations that involve logic, but don't tell me to leave the law, I can't leave." I just keep on scrolling down. My heart winces a little, but I realize that I can't freely give an answer about how to cope in ill-fitting work situations. I decide that question is not for me, any more than those questions about 'Need help with a song from 1968 that involved the words "orange peel", "supersonic" and "You're my little paper clip"!' Notmyquestion. Its for somebody else who has the answer to the question that the poster asked, not the one I think they should be asking.
Sometimes I do keep an eye out for that poster, and see if they ever post "I'm ready to leave the law. How do I do this?", because then I pounce like a steely eyed cat. Or not. Everybody's got their own path, and sometimes they cross at just the right time with mine and a connection is made, and other times, I no longer have the ability or interest to answer the question. What's neat about metafilter is that with so many people and so many questions, so many connections are actually made between actual question and best answer. I just have to realize that many times, I'm just a witness.
So in short - if they say 'no therapy, christianity, don't tell me to leave him/move out of my parent's home/get a job, DTMFA, or answers from women, black people, people from california, etc.', they'll hear not a peep from me about it.
posted by anitanita at 9:10 PM on May 4, 2009 [8 favorites]
I've been in several career counseling situations with a woman (often it's a woman, not always) who's husband/family members are emotionally blackmailing her around what are and are not 'acceptable' employment options for her. In one case, she was smart as a whip, ambitious, but her husband had needs, and basically her told her that her career really just couldn't get in the way of those needs. One of his needs was that she be in a position where she was often emotionally and physically available, because his career was demanding.
So she was trying to negotiate and contort herself around these demands, and asking for my help as a career counselor to do so. Basically she started the conversation with something like: "Leaving him is not an option, so help me find another job that fits his criteria." And I remember struggling with this, wanting to withhold my help, wanting to shake her into her senses. I imagined being her sassy black friend who said "You don't need another job - what you NEED is another man, Or in this case, an actual adult, and not this sorry ass life fucker, as you seem to have hitched your shiny wagon to his grubby little black hole". In fact, I probably did tune out for a nanosecond and did say this to her, in my head, as she was explaining his parameters of "acceptable" work.
And then I realized that I had a choice - to help her, or not to. But she didn't come for the extra serving of judgment, so I needed to just shut up about that, and pay attention to the help she did want. In the end I remember sharing with her why this was so hard for me: that it broke my heart to see someone try to break her like that, and it sounded like that was what he was trying to do. And by helping her, I felt like I was helping him hurt her, and I didn't want to help him do that, so if she ever wanted to talk about the wider spectrum of options here, I'd be there. Then we got down to finding her 'suitable' employment.
It's kind of difficult when people ask for advice that just seems to lead to more hell for them, or limit themselves to acceptable and unacceptable options up front. But there also seems to be a mean kind of sharp edge to mefis who see red when posters have set those parameters. I've just decided that if I can't fit into those parameters, then a little mauve light comes on in my head that says "NOTMYQUESTION"
So these days if I see a posting from a law student who says: "I'm miserable, physically ill, terrified that my lack of knowledge will get someone wrongly incarcerated, I hate the hours and being in confrontational situations that involve logic, but don't tell me to leave the law, I can't leave." I just keep on scrolling down. My heart winces a little, but I realize that I can't freely give an answer about how to cope in ill-fitting work situations. I decide that question is not for me, any more than those questions about 'Need help with a song from 1968 that involved the words "orange peel", "supersonic" and "You're my little paper clip"!' Notmyquestion. Its for somebody else who has the answer to the question that the poster asked, not the one I think they should be asking.
Sometimes I do keep an eye out for that poster, and see if they ever post "I'm ready to leave the law. How do I do this?", because then I pounce like a steely eyed cat. Or not. Everybody's got their own path, and sometimes they cross at just the right time with mine and a connection is made, and other times, I no longer have the ability or interest to answer the question. What's neat about metafilter is that with so many people and so many questions, so many connections are actually made between actual question and best answer. I just have to realize that many times, I'm just a witness.
So in short - if they say 'no therapy, christianity, don't tell me to leave him/move out of my parent's home/get a job, DTMFA, or answers from women, black people, people from california, etc.', they'll hear not a peep from me about it.
posted by anitanita at 9:10 PM on May 4, 2009 [8 favorites]
This strikes me as basically one of those instances where someone is seeking a blanket rule that will cover the exception they wish to make to the existing guidelines. "Why is it OK when they do it, but not when I do it?" But the two questions being compared aren't equivalent.
I agree with the general idea that your answer should focus on helpfulness to the asker, and a lot of times the asker won't find something directly contrary to their criteria helpful at all.
I also agree with the idea that if you are going to contradict their wishes and recommend something they didn't want to hear anyway, you should couch it respectfully, and it would probably go unremarked on. It happens a lot and generally is not a big deal. (Incidentally, this is a good place for using the "I" statements rather than the "you should" statements: "I get a lot of comfort from reflecting on this idea from my faith. I know you said you weren't interested in Western religions, but considering this one teaching/story does work for me so I offer it in case it has any resonance for you."
But perhaps you could also notice that what you are recommending really isn't your faith. Yes, it comforts you to use doctrines from your faith, but, very generally speaking, you are noting that having a spiritual practice that deals with the problem of evil has helped you. Having a spiritual practice helps a lot of people. It doesn't have to be your spiritual practice to help, does it? After all, most world religious traditions have evolved some sort of response to the problem of evil. The poster said no "Western religion," but that leaves a lot of other possible approaches. They could find value in another spiritual approach just as you've found value in your own freely chosen one.
If you are really recommending that the OP develop a spiritual practice of their own, then there's not a thing wrong with that - it's well within the boundaries laid out in the question. Stay general, emphasize the ultimate benefit to a spiritual practice in your own life, suggest some readings or places to go (which is what this question requested) and you won't offend.
But if you are recommending your specific faith - that is proselytizing. You don't have the solution that's going to help her. You do have some insights about how a spiritual practice can improve a person's outlook and help them come to an understanding of evil - but you only have the right answers for your life and worldview, not hers.
The analogy with therapy is imperfect. But if I take it up to illustrate this point, it might look something like this:
I agree with the general idea that your answer should focus on helpfulness to the asker, and a lot of times the asker won't find something directly contrary to their criteria helpful at all.
I also agree with the idea that if you are going to contradict their wishes and recommend something they didn't want to hear anyway, you should couch it respectfully, and it would probably go unremarked on. It happens a lot and generally is not a big deal. (Incidentally, this is a good place for using the "I" statements rather than the "you should" statements: "I get a lot of comfort from reflecting on this idea from my faith. I know you said you weren't interested in Western religions, but considering this one teaching/story does work for me so I offer it in case it has any resonance for you."
But perhaps you could also notice that what you are recommending really isn't your faith. Yes, it comforts you to use doctrines from your faith, but, very generally speaking, you are noting that having a spiritual practice that deals with the problem of evil has helped you. Having a spiritual practice helps a lot of people. It doesn't have to be your spiritual practice to help, does it? After all, most world religious traditions have evolved some sort of response to the problem of evil. The poster said no "Western religion," but that leaves a lot of other possible approaches. They could find value in another spiritual approach just as you've found value in your own freely chosen one.
If you are really recommending that the OP develop a spiritual practice of their own, then there's not a thing wrong with that - it's well within the boundaries laid out in the question. Stay general, emphasize the ultimate benefit to a spiritual practice in your own life, suggest some readings or places to go (which is what this question requested) and you won't offend.
But if you are recommending your specific faith - that is proselytizing. You don't have the solution that's going to help her. You do have some insights about how a spiritual practice can improve a person's outlook and help them come to an understanding of evil - but you only have the right answers for your life and worldview, not hers.
The analogy with therapy is imperfect. But if I take it up to illustrate this point, it might look something like this:
Question: I'm really having trouble dealing with my crazy spouse. Please don't tell us to go to couples counseling - they won't go. At all.posted by Miko at 9:40 PM on May 4, 2009 [1 favorite]
Decent answer: My spouse and I had the same problem and benefited a lot from couples counseling. I understand you don't want to go, but maybe there are some things you could do that would have a similar effect. I think what worked about it was that we were both committed to spending time focused on improving our lives for a couple hours each week. If you don't want to go to counseling, maybe you can work on a project together or make a weekly date to go for a walk and talk things over. Or, alternatively, you could go to counseling on your own and maybe you'll develop some good skills for talking to your spouse in the future.
Not so good answer: Couples counseling is the only way to deal with this problem. Only couples counseling can provide the answers you seek and the salvation of your marriage. I understand you don't think you want to go to couples counseling, but you probably just don't know what couples counseling is and how it can help you like it helped me. Let me tell you about couples counseling and what a perfect, ideal solution it is for your exact problem. If you keep rejecting this solution you will always remain outside the warm light of couples counseling, tortured in perpetuity by dumb arguments and upended toilet seats.
Just to offer you yet another point of view, DWR, I could very well have said the same thing if I were to make a post. Fact is, I went to a Christian church and came out very badly damaged and in fact, suicidal. It took years of therapy to undo the mess they created and alleviate the constant guilt and shame they induced in me. People in my life that are Christians are all "oh you should give my church a try, we're nothing like that," or "don't discard God because of one bad church," but I was put through such an awful ordeal that I'm not even willing to risk that again. So if I were to ask a question like this and you said to me "I really think Christianity has the best answer for your question," I would likely ignore you. No personal offense met - it's just I've been there, done that, and been too hurt.
posted by IndigoRain at 9:44 PM on May 4, 2009
posted by IndigoRain at 9:44 PM on May 4, 2009
> I'm always interested by the the need for a poster to set limits on acceptable and unacceptable options, for whatever reason, and how much that personally and irrationally rubs me the wrong way.
The problem is, the advice people try to pre-empt on AskMe tends to be the most obvious, and thus the most likely advice they've either already tried, are considering but want alternative perspectives on, are already in the process of following, or simply must reject because of factors unknown to us (such as moral considerations that are more important than the problem they are trying to solve).
It's a bit of an insult to assume they didn't realize therapy is good for emotional issues, or that religion is notoriously good at solving existential crises, or that declawing your cat will stop them from shredding your beloved couch, and so on. Why even ask if they already know the answer? It's because they're asking for something they haven't considered, and doing so for reasons we don't have enough information to judge without a lot of exposition on their part that can be avoided by just saying "no ____, please, thanks."
This is a little different than the situation you describe, where you have a dialogue with the woman you were councelling -- something that's impossible when posting anonymously, and generally undesirable when dealing with a whole group of strangers instead of a single person. They are just saving you time by requesting you not give advice that they already know will be useless to them. I think this should be respected unconditionally, or at least carefully considered in context before insisting they hear your take on it.
posted by cj_ at 10:07 PM on May 4, 2009
The problem is, the advice people try to pre-empt on AskMe tends to be the most obvious, and thus the most likely advice they've either already tried, are considering but want alternative perspectives on, are already in the process of following, or simply must reject because of factors unknown to us (such as moral considerations that are more important than the problem they are trying to solve).
It's a bit of an insult to assume they didn't realize therapy is good for emotional issues, or that religion is notoriously good at solving existential crises, or that declawing your cat will stop them from shredding your beloved couch, and so on. Why even ask if they already know the answer? It's because they're asking for something they haven't considered, and doing so for reasons we don't have enough information to judge without a lot of exposition on their part that can be avoided by just saying "no ____, please, thanks."
This is a little different than the situation you describe, where you have a dialogue with the woman you were councelling -- something that's impossible when posting anonymously, and generally undesirable when dealing with a whole group of strangers instead of a single person. They are just saving you time by requesting you not give advice that they already know will be useless to them. I think this should be respected unconditionally, or at least carefully considered in context before insisting they hear your take on it.
posted by cj_ at 10:07 PM on May 4, 2009
I think you're right CJ_. I agree people should try their best to respect the OPs position as much as possible or move on.
Yet I like the people who do take the extra minute to explain why their parameters exist. For example, if they say no christianity, i might assume that they mean no religious texts at all. Or no spirituality....and I've got this lovely little Rumi number over here....
Or they say 'no therapy' not because they disagree with the therapeutic process, but because they are too ashamed to tell anyone, which is why thy are posting anon. Because then I know my suggestion of talking to friends is also a non starter. My intent isn't ever to insult, but in understanding the rationale for rejecting certain options, any advice I do give can be for tailored.
The student who says 'don't ask me to leave medical school, I can't', will get a totally different answer if the reason is "because I'm already $90,000 in debt", compared to "Because as a first generation college student from country X, my family has invested in my education so I can support my younger siblings' education later", compared to "Because I thought I wanted be a doctor from age 5, and I'm too terrified to imagine doing anything else with my life and feel like a superfailure to boot".
posted by anitanita at 10:28 PM on May 4, 2009
Yet I like the people who do take the extra minute to explain why their parameters exist. For example, if they say no christianity, i might assume that they mean no religious texts at all. Or no spirituality....and I've got this lovely little Rumi number over here....
Or they say 'no therapy' not because they disagree with the therapeutic process, but because they are too ashamed to tell anyone, which is why thy are posting anon. Because then I know my suggestion of talking to friends is also a non starter. My intent isn't ever to insult, but in understanding the rationale for rejecting certain options, any advice I do give can be for tailored.
The student who says 'don't ask me to leave medical school, I can't', will get a totally different answer if the reason is "because I'm already $90,000 in debt", compared to "Because as a first generation college student from country X, my family has invested in my education so I can support my younger siblings' education later", compared to "Because I thought I wanted be a doctor from age 5, and I'm too terrified to imagine doing anything else with my life and feel like a superfailure to boot".
posted by anitanita at 10:28 PM on May 4, 2009
I realize not every single person is the victim of proseyltizing family members. But I don't think it's a stretch to imagine that many of the people who get their hackles up about the subject are.
And they have every right to get their hackles up. But this is an issue that they should take up with their family members-- with the people who are actually proselytizing to them-- rather than directing anger and frustration at Christians in general, the unimaginably vast majority of whom are perfectly content to leave them alone. If I had spent my childhood being bullied by a couple of French kids, I'd like to think I wouldn't extrapolate from that experience that French people are assholes, but that the French kids who bullied me were assholes.
Christianity is thoroughly entrenched in every level of culture in the United States, and it does strike me as ridiculous when the least repressed demographic in the entire world starts in with the "help! help! I'm being repressed!" crying every time they come across someone who has a different belief and has the nerve to say so.
You're doing it again. I do not doubt that there are Christians who cry that they are being repressed when someone declares their own non-faith. (Although I have never experienced this myself). But when you say that a "demographic" does something, you are implying that this something is a thing that all (or at least a majority of the) members of that demographic do. This is simply not true. Just because a very vocal minority of a particular group does something that bothers you-- or that you find ridiculous-- is no reason to make broad and sweeping generalizations about the entire group.
posted by dersins at 10:59 PM on May 4, 2009 [4 favorites]
And they have every right to get their hackles up. But this is an issue that they should take up with their family members-- with the people who are actually proselytizing to them-- rather than directing anger and frustration at Christians in general, the unimaginably vast majority of whom are perfectly content to leave them alone. If I had spent my childhood being bullied by a couple of French kids, I'd like to think I wouldn't extrapolate from that experience that French people are assholes, but that the French kids who bullied me were assholes.
Christianity is thoroughly entrenched in every level of culture in the United States, and it does strike me as ridiculous when the least repressed demographic in the entire world starts in with the "help! help! I'm being repressed!" crying every time they come across someone who has a different belief and has the nerve to say so.
You're doing it again. I do not doubt that there are Christians who cry that they are being repressed when someone declares their own non-faith. (Although I have never experienced this myself). But when you say that a "demographic" does something, you are implying that this something is a thing that all (or at least a majority of the) members of that demographic do. This is simply not true. Just because a very vocal minority of a particular group does something that bothers you-- or that you find ridiculous-- is no reason to make broad and sweeping generalizations about the entire group.
posted by dersins at 10:59 PM on May 4, 2009 [4 favorites]
MetaFilter: [broad and sweeping generalization about the entire group]
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 11:14 PM on May 4, 2009 [2 favorites]
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 11:14 PM on May 4, 2009 [2 favorites]
With all due respect Dersins, I would never dream of bringing this subject up. This thread was started by a Christian who was asked politely not to proselytize, and finding such a request objectionable enough to start a thread about it. That's sorta what I'm talking about.
Also, I fail to see where any anger -- in this thread, the original AskMe, or the site in general -- is being directed at you personally. If you belong to the rare breed of Christian who does not feel it is important your system of values is universally accepted as truth, then I am quite simply not talking about you. But please realize you are pretty rare. Christianity is notorious (both historically and contemporarily) for forcing their beliefs on others. If you do not see this, I suggest this is more the result of you being in the comfy 90%-of-everyone-around-me-shares-my-views zone and willfully disregarding reports that us in the < 10% zone are having a different experience.
It's not just the vocal minority, I wish that it were. The past eight years of policy implementation informed by Christian values regarding sex education, science, stem cell research, euthanasia, abortion, distribution of birth control, censorship of so-called objectionable media, and laws discriminating against homosexuals (to rattle off a few things off the top of my head, but by no means comprehensive) tell me otherwise. I guess that all seems normal to you, since as a Christian you surely believe all those things are immoral and can't conceive of the fact that some of us don't agree. That's the problem here. We don't agree about that at all.
Anyway, have a happy National Day Of Prayer. I'm just happy I'm compelled by the state to observe it (yet!).
posted by cj_ at 12:28 AM on May 5, 2009
Also, I fail to see where any anger -- in this thread, the original AskMe, or the site in general -- is being directed at you personally. If you belong to the rare breed of Christian who does not feel it is important your system of values is universally accepted as truth, then I am quite simply not talking about you. But please realize you are pretty rare. Christianity is notorious (both historically and contemporarily) for forcing their beliefs on others. If you do not see this, I suggest this is more the result of you being in the comfy 90%-of-everyone-around-me-shares-my-views zone and willfully disregarding reports that us in the < 10% zone are having a different experience.
It's not just the vocal minority, I wish that it were. The past eight years of policy implementation informed by Christian values regarding sex education, science, stem cell research, euthanasia, abortion, distribution of birth control, censorship of so-called objectionable media, and laws discriminating against homosexuals (to rattle off a few things off the top of my head, but by no means comprehensive) tell me otherwise. I guess that all seems normal to you, since as a Christian you surely believe all those things are immoral and can't conceive of the fact that some of us don't agree. That's the problem here. We don't agree about that at all.
Anyway, have a happy National Day Of Prayer. I'm just happy I'm compelled by the state to observe it (yet!).
posted by cj_ at 12:28 AM on May 5, 2009
...then a little mauve light comes on in my head that says "NOTMYQUESTION"
Why mauve?
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 1:41 AM on May 5, 2009
Why mauve?
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 1:41 AM on May 5, 2009
The past eight years of policy implementation informed by Christian values regarding sex education, science, stem cell research, euthanasia, abortion, distribution of birth control, censorship of so-called objectionable media, and laws discriminating against homosexuals (to rattle off a few things off the top of my head, but by no means comprehensive) tell me otherwise. I guess that all seems normal to you, since as a Christian you surely believe all those things are immoral and can't conceive of the fact that some of us don't agree.
Christianity, I've been doing it wrong?
Sorry, CJ, but this statement perfectly illustrates what Dersins is complaining about. I pretty much detested the Bush Administration/GOP cloaking of itself as the Christian Party from the start, and certainly didn't don't agree with what you're proposing above. I do not represent some minor faction of my faith. Assuming that the "Moral Majority" and the Fundamentalist Right somehow represent the majority of Christians is like buying into the silent majority that the GOP just knows is waiting to return the party to glory, and must have some how, on the way to the polls in 2006 and 2008, accidentally taken a wrong turn, had a flat tire, stopped to pray too long in church for the saving of America, paused to report a suspicious looking Arab man with a camera, etc.
This blithe grouping of all Christians into a Fox News demographic is incorrect and wrong.
posted by Atreides at 5:51 AM on May 5, 2009 [1 favorite]
Christianity, I've been doing it wrong?
Sorry, CJ, but this statement perfectly illustrates what Dersins is complaining about. I pretty much detested the Bush Administration/GOP cloaking of itself as the Christian Party from the start, and certainly didn't don't agree with what you're proposing above. I do not represent some minor faction of my faith. Assuming that the "Moral Majority" and the Fundamentalist Right somehow represent the majority of Christians is like buying into the silent majority that the GOP just knows is waiting to return the party to glory, and must have some how, on the way to the polls in 2006 and 2008, accidentally taken a wrong turn, had a flat tire, stopped to pray too long in church for the saving of America, paused to report a suspicious looking Arab man with a camera, etc.
This blithe grouping of all Christians into a Fox News demographic is incorrect and wrong.
posted by Atreides at 5:51 AM on May 5, 2009 [1 favorite]
Sorry, CJ, but this statement perfectly illustrates what Dersins is complaining about.
Actually, the back and forth here illustrates why a person should respect someone's wishes about religious advice. It all comes down to persona experiences and you can't tell someone their experiences were wrong and expect them to listen to you. Dersins may be factually correct in saying that cj's family take on Christianity is the problem and you, Atreides, are correct when you say not all Christians are like the Fox News demographics. None of that matters to someone who's seen the worst examples of Christianity brand themselves as the best examples of it. They've lived with that shit for years and more often than not, they're just done with religion.
So do religion a favor and lay off of them, quit trying to demonstrate they're wrong or mistaken, let it go. There are millions of people who believe, there's no reason to get bent out of shape over someone who doesn't.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 6:01 AM on May 5, 2009 [1 favorite]
Actually, the back and forth here illustrates why a person should respect someone's wishes about religious advice. It all comes down to persona experiences and you can't tell someone their experiences were wrong and expect them to listen to you. Dersins may be factually correct in saying that cj's family take on Christianity is the problem and you, Atreides, are correct when you say not all Christians are like the Fox News demographics. None of that matters to someone who's seen the worst examples of Christianity brand themselves as the best examples of it. They've lived with that shit for years and more often than not, they're just done with religion.
So do religion a favor and lay off of them, quit trying to demonstrate they're wrong or mistaken, let it go. There are millions of people who believe, there's no reason to get bent out of shape over someone who doesn't.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 6:01 AM on May 5, 2009 [1 favorite]
This thread was started by a Christian who was asked politely not to proselytize, and finding such a request objectionable enough to start a thread about it.
With all due respect, that is the most negative reading of the question possible. Is it possible that he wanted to be helpful but was thoughtful enough to be concerned that his answer would not be appropriate or helpful or useful? Is it possible that he didn't enter that question to "save their soul" but to help them with something that helps him deal with the same issue - and when he read the question, instead of barreling through and ignoring the request for nothing related to western religion, he thought about it and he politely honored the literal letter of the request. After thinking about it, and looking at how other hot-button issues are handled here, he did a logical thing and brought it to the grey.
There is a difference between "Looking at these parables/related books by religious folks/stories/tales really help me when I'm faced with the sadness and depressing tales of the world" or "When I read about how these kids at the XYZ church raised money to send books and medicine to Africa, it really moved me" and "You really should read the Bible/Koran/Torah/Baghavad Gita/Dianetics/Go Dog Go again because you it will CHANGE YOUR LIFE. Try it again! You will find all the answers you need in it." You seem to assume he wanted to go immediately to the third statement, but it is entirely possible and believable that he didn't come into the thread thinking of the third statement but was worried that a book by a Christian author or one including stories of how good deeds grew out of someone's faith, or news stories about humanitarian efforts that emerged from a church community might be too far over the line for that poster. It might very well be, but not all three of those things are prosthelytizing.
I say this as an agnostic verging on atheism who lives in a part of the country where your church is very much part of your identity and social community, and I have to listen to opinions informed by the spiritual background that I strongly disagree with. But I also meet and know many many many Christians and those of Bible-related faiths who - while being spiritual - are not on a constant path to convert and spiritualize me. These are the vast majority of folks.
posted by julen at 6:02 AM on May 5, 2009 [2 favorites]
With all due respect, that is the most negative reading of the question possible. Is it possible that he wanted to be helpful but was thoughtful enough to be concerned that his answer would not be appropriate or helpful or useful? Is it possible that he didn't enter that question to "save their soul" but to help them with something that helps him deal with the same issue - and when he read the question, instead of barreling through and ignoring the request for nothing related to western religion, he thought about it and he politely honored the literal letter of the request. After thinking about it, and looking at how other hot-button issues are handled here, he did a logical thing and brought it to the grey.
There is a difference between "Looking at these parables/related books by religious folks/stories/tales really help me when I'm faced with the sadness and depressing tales of the world" or "When I read about how these kids at the XYZ church raised money to send books and medicine to Africa, it really moved me" and "You really should read the Bible/Koran/Torah/Baghavad Gita/Dianetics/Go Dog Go again because you it will CHANGE YOUR LIFE. Try it again! You will find all the answers you need in it." You seem to assume he wanted to go immediately to the third statement, but it is entirely possible and believable that he didn't come into the thread thinking of the third statement but was worried that a book by a Christian author or one including stories of how good deeds grew out of someone's faith, or news stories about humanitarian efforts that emerged from a church community might be too far over the line for that poster. It might very well be, but not all three of those things are prosthelytizing.
I say this as an agnostic verging on atheism who lives in a part of the country where your church is very much part of your identity and social community, and I have to listen to opinions informed by the spiritual background that I strongly disagree with. But I also meet and know many many many Christians and those of Bible-related faiths who - while being spiritual - are not on a constant path to convert and spiritualize me. These are the vast majority of folks.
posted by julen at 6:02 AM on May 5, 2009 [2 favorites]
> It all comes down to persona experiences and you can't tell someone their experiences were wrong and expect them to listen to you. Dersins may be factually correct in saying that cj's family take on Christianity is the problem and you, Atreides, are correct when you say not all Christians are like the Fox News demographics. None of that matters to someone who's seen the worst examples of Christianity brand themselves as the best examples of it.
"It all comes down to personal experiences and you can't tell someone their experiences were wrong and expect them to listen to you. People may be factually correct in saying that X's family take on Jews is the problem and you, Y, are correct when you say not all Jews are like the usurers. None of that matters to someone who's seen the worst examples of Judaism brand themselves as the best examples of it."
Do we see the problem now?
posted by languagehat at 6:45 AM on May 5, 2009
"It all comes down to personal experiences and you can't tell someone their experiences were wrong and expect them to listen to you. People may be factually correct in saying that X's family take on Jews is the problem and you, Y, are correct when you say not all Jews are like the usurers. None of that matters to someone who's seen the worst examples of Judaism brand themselves as the best examples of it."
Do we see the problem now?
posted by languagehat at 6:45 AM on May 5, 2009
Note: I am an atheist and hold no brief for Christianity as the one true religion or as the answer to the world's problems, but it is quite clear to me that the Christians who are trying to push a bigoted right-wing agenda on the country are a tiny minority and that most Christians pretty much reflect the community they live in, being distinguished primarily by the fact that they occasionally go to church. If someone takes their own personal experiences with "bad Christians" as a reason to despise Christians as a whole, they are ignorant, irrational, and bigoted.
posted by languagehat at 6:48 AM on May 5, 2009 [3 favorites]
posted by languagehat at 6:48 AM on May 5, 2009 [3 favorites]
Brandon Blatcher:
The first guy I ever dated who decided he didn't want to date anymore...well, I used to see him at school and every time I saw him there was all this confusion babbling in my head about "Why doesn't he want to be with me, blah, blah, blah".
I used to cut through it all by imagining the words "NOTMYGUY" writ large in my head, or in the sky, rumbling and appearing out of nowhere, like the voice of God. It was large and prominent because at often it was so hard to get my mind's attention and short circuit the noise.
These days, a little mauve light shining on the same words often suffices for all of my nots: "Notmybusiness", "Notmyproblem", "Notmyqustion" etc.
Mauve was his favorite color.
posted by anitanita at 7:11 AM on May 5, 2009 [5 favorites]
The first guy I ever dated who decided he didn't want to date anymore...well, I used to see him at school and every time I saw him there was all this confusion babbling in my head about "Why doesn't he want to be with me, blah, blah, blah".
I used to cut through it all by imagining the words "NOTMYGUY" writ large in my head, or in the sky, rumbling and appearing out of nowhere, like the voice of God. It was large and prominent because at often it was so hard to get my mind's attention and short circuit the noise.
These days, a little mauve light shining on the same words often suffices for all of my nots: "Notmybusiness", "Notmyproblem", "Notmyqustion" etc.
Mauve was his favorite color.
posted by anitanita at 7:11 AM on May 5, 2009 [5 favorites]
Do we see the problem now?
I'm not sure how that it helps to say a person's dislike of Christian tinged advice also means they hate Jews.
If someone takes their own personal experiences with "bad Christians" as a reason to despise Christians as a whole, they are ignorant, irrational, and bigoted.
I am sure that calling someone ignorant, irrational and bigoted doesn't help.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 7:13 AM on May 5, 2009
I'm not sure how that it helps to say a person's dislike of Christian tinged advice also means they hate Jews.
If someone takes their own personal experiences with "bad Christians" as a reason to despise Christians as a whole, they are ignorant, irrational, and bigoted.
I am sure that calling someone ignorant, irrational and bigoted doesn't help.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 7:13 AM on May 5, 2009
It's not clear to me that it's a tiny minority. Not at all. Look at the breakdown of the voters on Prop 8. Wikipedia used to have a great breakdown with the evangelicals in there, as well as folks who went to church weekly; I'll have to go through the history to find it. Recently, the article contained "8 from the CNN exit poll. For those who voted Yes on Proposition 8: 84% of weekly churchgoers – (32% of those polled); 82% of Republicans – (29% of those polled); 81% of white evangelicals – (17% of those polled); ..."
The closest I can find offhand is over here.
Now, when 84% of the voting weekly churchgoers voted Yes on Proposition 8, you either have to radically redefine the phrase "tiny minority" or you have to pretend that there's an enormous correlation between voting and attending church weekly. I'm willing to go for some correlation, but not that large.
posted by adipocere at 7:14 AM on May 5, 2009
The closest I can find offhand is over here.
Now, when 84% of the voting weekly churchgoers voted Yes on Proposition 8, you either have to radically redefine the phrase "tiny minority" or you have to pretend that there's an enormous correlation between voting and attending church weekly. I'm willing to go for some correlation, but not that large.
posted by adipocere at 7:14 AM on May 5, 2009
I should stop tonight and run the numbers on this, best case and worst case scenarios. 32% of the voters does not seem terribly much like a tiny minority to me, but it's always illuminating to try to work towards either end of the spectrum to see just how far arguments can be made for either side.
posted by adipocere at 7:17 AM on May 5, 2009
posted by adipocere at 7:17 AM on May 5, 2009
Metafilter, as a website is not a unfriendly place for Christians.
Are you a Christian?
A lot of talk about "bad Christians" or the bad aspects of Christians in this thread, all which I whole-heartedly agree with and couldn't be more sad about. Far too many Christians are hypocrites and doing a great disservice to the religious standard they claim.
Let us not make their same mistake and claim to be something that we really don't evidence in our behavior.
To cite Pater's side-barring is a great example - when was the last time before that in which a Christian-slanted comment or post was side-barred? Has there ever been? I don't say that as an accusal against the mods, so much as to make the point that there really isn't much content (good or great) about Christianity around here, and when there is, it often devolves into heated debate / LOLXIAN / etc. because of the strong atheist / agnostic undertones here. Compare that to the number of heavily-favorited comments promoting said undertones (hint: they're on the popular page almost weekly).
I'm not condemning the site for that or saying that it needs to change. I'd just like us to be honest about how welcoming the site really is to certain user groups (e.g. newly initiated vs. long-time partakers) so that we don't come off as something we're not. And I think it might be helpful to know that if you do appreciate a comment like Pater's - there might actually be reasons they are so few and far between among the members here.
Say you're one of the more normal, not so "bad" Christians - and you show up at a party which you know from previous experience are primarily atheists. How quickly are you going to bring religion up?
That said, if a poster directly requests answers avoiding a certain type of response, we should try pretty hard to follow said request as long as its reasonable, which as a general rule it seems to be.
posted by allkindsoftime at 7:20 AM on May 5, 2009
Are you a Christian?
A lot of talk about "bad Christians" or the bad aspects of Christians in this thread, all which I whole-heartedly agree with and couldn't be more sad about. Far too many Christians are hypocrites and doing a great disservice to the religious standard they claim.
Let us not make their same mistake and claim to be something that we really don't evidence in our behavior.
To cite Pater's side-barring is a great example - when was the last time before that in which a Christian-slanted comment or post was side-barred? Has there ever been? I don't say that as an accusal against the mods, so much as to make the point that there really isn't much content (good or great) about Christianity around here, and when there is, it often devolves into heated debate / LOLXIAN / etc. because of the strong atheist / agnostic undertones here. Compare that to the number of heavily-favorited comments promoting said undertones (hint: they're on the popular page almost weekly).
I'm not condemning the site for that or saying that it needs to change. I'd just like us to be honest about how welcoming the site really is to certain user groups (e.g. newly initiated vs. long-time partakers) so that we don't come off as something we're not. And I think it might be helpful to know that if you do appreciate a comment like Pater's - there might actually be reasons they are so few and far between among the members here.
Say you're one of the more normal, not so "bad" Christians - and you show up at a party which you know from previous experience are primarily atheists. How quickly are you going to bring religion up?
That said, if a poster directly requests answers avoiding a certain type of response, we should try pretty hard to follow said request as long as its reasonable, which as a general rule it seems to be.
posted by allkindsoftime at 7:20 AM on May 5, 2009
I'm not sure how that it helps to say a person's dislike of Christian tinged advice also means they hate Jews.
Not only did I not say or imply that, I know damn well you don't think I did, which means your comment is disingenuous and you should be ashamed of yourself for making it.
I am sure that calling someone ignorant, irrational and bigoted doesn't help.
"Help"? What does that mean? Is MetaFilter a self-help site? I thought we were all about shining the light of snark-filled truth on a universe filled with darkness and deception. The fact is that ignorant bigots are ignorant and bigoted, and I'm telling it like it is. It's not surprising that bigots won't like it. Fuck 'em.
posted by languagehat at 7:45 AM on May 5, 2009
Not only did I not say or imply that, I know damn well you don't think I did, which means your comment is disingenuous and you should be ashamed of yourself for making it.
I am sure that calling someone ignorant, irrational and bigoted doesn't help.
"Help"? What does that mean? Is MetaFilter a self-help site? I thought we were all about shining the light of snark-filled truth on a universe filled with darkness and deception. The fact is that ignorant bigots are ignorant and bigoted, and I'm telling it like it is. It's not surprising that bigots won't like it. Fuck 'em.
posted by languagehat at 7:45 AM on May 5, 2009
This thread was started by a Christian who was asked politely not to proselytize, and finding such a request objectionable enough to start a thread about it.
I started this thread, and I have never said or implied that there was anything objectionable about the OP. I don't think I said anything in my followups to give that impression. If I did, that's my error and I apologize.
posted by DWRoelands at 7:48 AM on May 5, 2009 [2 favorites]
I started this thread, and I have never said or implied that there was anything objectionable about the OP. I don't think I said anything in my followups to give that impression. If I did, that's my error and I apologize.
posted by DWRoelands at 7:48 AM on May 5, 2009 [2 favorites]
How quickly are you going to bring religion up?
This to me is the crux of the issue. At that same party there are a lot of things you wouldn't bring up -- the great sex you had last night, the status of your digestive tract, your SAT scores, your strong opinions on bear-baiting -- because depending on the context they're just not polite conversational topics in a large mixed-company audience. Put another way, unless you know you're in a situation where topics like those are okay, it sort of puts a damper on things to start bringing them up.
For many people with more fringe or nichey interests, this is sort of how our lives are all the time. I don't talk about anarchist politics, for exmaple, with people who are having a nice talk about NPR or if I do, it's in general terms not in a "You should stop talking about stupid shit and listen to my Real Truths." way. Everyone hates that. So I get used to finding appropriate time/place for things like this. And it's a bind because part of being an activist with fringe interests is that you feel that people should hear what you have to say, and at the same time that's not really manners, where I'm from. This gets further complicated by sort of normative standards. If I were in a gay relationship, my relationship status might be more part of my identity and I'd make a point to mention that I was married to another woman specifically because this is out of the ordinary and I might not want people assuming I was otherwise. In the US you can assume someone is Christian unless they say otherwise, so it sometimes seems odd when they keep saying it.
So, put another way, as someone without religion, I don't feel that religion is really a topic of general interest at a mostly atheist party unless it's a topic raised with some care and probably not even then. And why should it be? And, most of us I suspect have been on the receiving end of people who bring up the topic without much care as a yardstick to measure themselves and us against and find us wanting. I definitely feel an "oh shit here we go again" stomach drop when someone wants to have that sort of conversation with me, but I mostly just politely change the subject.
It's a weird thing that for people with religion, their faith can be a pretty important and central part of their lives and so I understand wanting to share that and talk about that. And yet for people without religion, people who talk about religion are like people who talk about sports in a non-sports setting -- there are general interest ways to talk about sports but they have to be sort of specifically catered towards a general audience (examples of this in the basketball thread in MeTa). Often my feeling has been that people who want to talk about religion want to talk about it even if the person they're talking to pretty much doesn't. And this is where people feel that they're being preached to and it gets awkward.
From a moderator perspective it gets weird because most of us are at least agnostic and yet we wind up wading into these disputes because we want the place to be open to people of all sorts of different backgrounds. And yet we see flags on comments that people say are offenseive because people insulted god, or jesus, and I don't know what to do with that. Religion is really a topic with almost no corrolary as I see it on a site like this because there's not, at some real level, a way to break it down any further than "I believe" and "I don't believe" and yet people try to do it all the time.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 7:50 AM on May 5, 2009 [1 favorite]
This to me is the crux of the issue. At that same party there are a lot of things you wouldn't bring up -- the great sex you had last night, the status of your digestive tract, your SAT scores, your strong opinions on bear-baiting -- because depending on the context they're just not polite conversational topics in a large mixed-company audience. Put another way, unless you know you're in a situation where topics like those are okay, it sort of puts a damper on things to start bringing them up.
For many people with more fringe or nichey interests, this is sort of how our lives are all the time. I don't talk about anarchist politics, for exmaple, with people who are having a nice talk about NPR or if I do, it's in general terms not in a "You should stop talking about stupid shit and listen to my Real Truths." way. Everyone hates that. So I get used to finding appropriate time/place for things like this. And it's a bind because part of being an activist with fringe interests is that you feel that people should hear what you have to say, and at the same time that's not really manners, where I'm from. This gets further complicated by sort of normative standards. If I were in a gay relationship, my relationship status might be more part of my identity and I'd make a point to mention that I was married to another woman specifically because this is out of the ordinary and I might not want people assuming I was otherwise. In the US you can assume someone is Christian unless they say otherwise, so it sometimes seems odd when they keep saying it.
So, put another way, as someone without religion, I don't feel that religion is really a topic of general interest at a mostly atheist party unless it's a topic raised with some care and probably not even then. And why should it be? And, most of us I suspect have been on the receiving end of people who bring up the topic without much care as a yardstick to measure themselves and us against and find us wanting. I definitely feel an "oh shit here we go again" stomach drop when someone wants to have that sort of conversation with me, but I mostly just politely change the subject.
It's a weird thing that for people with religion, their faith can be a pretty important and central part of their lives and so I understand wanting to share that and talk about that. And yet for people without religion, people who talk about religion are like people who talk about sports in a non-sports setting -- there are general interest ways to talk about sports but they have to be sort of specifically catered towards a general audience (examples of this in the basketball thread in MeTa). Often my feeling has been that people who want to talk about religion want to talk about it even if the person they're talking to pretty much doesn't. And this is where people feel that they're being preached to and it gets awkward.
From a moderator perspective it gets weird because most of us are at least agnostic and yet we wind up wading into these disputes because we want the place to be open to people of all sorts of different backgrounds. And yet we see flags on comments that people say are offenseive because people insulted god, or jesus, and I don't know what to do with that. Religion is really a topic with almost no corrolary as I see it on a site like this because there's not, at some real level, a way to break it down any further than "I believe" and "I don't believe" and yet people try to do it all the time.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 7:50 AM on May 5, 2009 [1 favorite]
To cite Pater's side-barring is a great example - when was the last time before that in which a Christian-slanted comment or post was side-barred? Has there ever been?
This is echoing what Jessamyn is saying, but I want to point out that this is a pretty badly premised example, given that (like conversation-starters at a party) we're generally shy about posting any sort of distinctly ideology/politics-slanted comment to the sidebar. We generally stick to more value-neutral "this is a neat story" or "this is a funny comment" or "this is an insider view on post topic x" stuff specifically because we don't want to make folks uncomfortable or implicitly promote any particular ideological stance with what goes on the sidebar.
You might as well ask when was the last time on which a Zoroastrianism-slanted comment or an Anarchocollectivism-slanted post was sidebarred. Once? Ever? Granting a reasonable degree of specificity, most things have been sidebarred either once or never.
posted by cortex (staff) at 8:23 AM on May 5, 2009
This is echoing what Jessamyn is saying, but I want to point out that this is a pretty badly premised example, given that (like conversation-starters at a party) we're generally shy about posting any sort of distinctly ideology/politics-slanted comment to the sidebar. We generally stick to more value-neutral "this is a neat story" or "this is a funny comment" or "this is an insider view on post topic x" stuff specifically because we don't want to make folks uncomfortable or implicitly promote any particular ideological stance with what goes on the sidebar.
You might as well ask when was the last time on which a Zoroastrianism-slanted comment or an Anarchocollectivism-slanted post was sidebarred. Once? Ever? Granting a reasonable degree of specificity, most things have been sidebarred either once or never.
posted by cortex (staff) at 8:23 AM on May 5, 2009
Say you're one of the more normal, not so "bad" Christians - and you show up at a party which you know from previous experience are primarily atheists. How quickly are you going to bring religion up?
This is a good point and one that I think the community would do well to consider.
I'm a Quaker, which is a pretty darned theologically liberal kind of a Christian, and I think that many of the sweeping comments made about Christians and religious people in general are pretty ignorant. Whenever I do stick out my neck in even a slight way, two contradictory things predictably happen: (a) being told that Christians are all terrible, hate-filled people who want to smash your human rights underfoot, and (b) being told that if I'm not THAT kind of Christian personally, then I have some responsibility to represent my type of Christianity MORE loudly because, as long as I don't, it will remain perfectly fine for MeFites who take exception to one branch of a faith to slander all Christians. It will be fine for them to remain so intellectually lazy that they don't have to lift a single brain cell to understand that it's one of the most diverse faith traditions in the world. And that unless some of us take on the personal quest of disabusing them, and, somehow, the entire world, of the idea that Christians are awful people, they have no responsibility for modifying their language or questioning their own biases and assumptions or even doing a tiny bit of research.
This puts anyone like me at MeFi between a rock and a hard place. If you 'out' yourself as any kind of believer except, maybe, Buddhist, some MeFites will shout you down for being an unscientific, soft-headed noodly-appendage-loving self-deluding chump who perpetrates hate and cruelty in the world and don't deny it because we all know it's true look at the Inquisition, and then if you say 'but I'm actually not like that' then the response will usually be "well then, you need to talk about it MORE and get out there and fight the hate-filled Christians and stop letting them define Christianity." However, when I take them on that, and try to talk about it more and present a different definition of Christianity, I then get skewered for all the terrible things done under the banner of "Christian" and don't deny it look at the Inquisition.
How much of this angry ping-pong would any sane person be up for? It's not worth it, and you don't get treated with a lot of respect when you take up this discussion, so I'm pretty sure most MeFites who include a religion in their lives just shut up about it, like I mostly do. This isn't really a place for that kind of discussion because there are a lot of legitimately scarred people who project too many assumptions on those who admit to having a religion.
It becomes a very childish discussion overall. It comes down to being blamed for other people's ignorance; it'd be laughable if it weren't so mean-spirited.
Another point I try to make (though I don't think it gets through much of the time) is that I'm not responsible for or interested in changing other people who participate in some other branch of the Christian faith. That's their business; my business is mine. I hate it when they're hypocritical too, but I have no special 'play' with them just because we are twigs on the same limb of world religious history - many of them think I'm way wrong and misled and going to burn in hell just like all the other heathens. languagehat's comparison with Jews and Judaism is spot on: for some reason, people get the difference between Orthodox Jews and reform or cultural Jews, but are unable to extend the same perception of theological diversity when it comes to Christianity, and tend to react to a superficial impression of Christianity or to an experience with one denomination or small set of denominations.
And besides that, I believe in a humanistic government and humanistic principles in the civil sphere. I'm never going to go out and protest a bunch of Christians as another Christian. That is pointless. It doesn't matter - the end of civil society is common well-being, not determining which Christianity is better. How ridiculous. I will instead readily go out and protest a bunch of Christians as a citizen who opposes anyone trying to improperly use the civil government as an arena to deny certain groups' civil rights. To me, that's really where the rubber meets the road. I don't oppose the anti-Prop 8 voters because they're being bad Christians; I can't even speak to that, I don't know what their denominations say specifically or what their motivations really are. They probably don't go to Friends Meeting, so we don't have a ton in common. I oppose them because they're being bad Americans and bad people. Their private moral world is theirs and mine is mine, and that's perfectly all right until we meet in the commons, and in the commons our concern is protecting human rights and freedoms and access to ideas. So I reject the idea that somehow liberal Christians are required to wage a counter-war against non-liberal Christians. They are already doing it, they're just doing it in coalition with everyone else who supports the common good. The answer to any religious group seeking to control government functions is not to set up another religious group in opposition to that one, but to stand strong in the civic sphere and defend humanist values - the only rational response in a pluralistic society.
posted by Miko at 8:26 AM on May 5, 2009 [26 favorites]
This is a good point and one that I think the community would do well to consider.
I'm a Quaker, which is a pretty darned theologically liberal kind of a Christian, and I think that many of the sweeping comments made about Christians and religious people in general are pretty ignorant. Whenever I do stick out my neck in even a slight way, two contradictory things predictably happen: (a) being told that Christians are all terrible, hate-filled people who want to smash your human rights underfoot, and (b) being told that if I'm not THAT kind of Christian personally, then I have some responsibility to represent my type of Christianity MORE loudly because, as long as I don't, it will remain perfectly fine for MeFites who take exception to one branch of a faith to slander all Christians. It will be fine for them to remain so intellectually lazy that they don't have to lift a single brain cell to understand that it's one of the most diverse faith traditions in the world. And that unless some of us take on the personal quest of disabusing them, and, somehow, the entire world, of the idea that Christians are awful people, they have no responsibility for modifying their language or questioning their own biases and assumptions or even doing a tiny bit of research.
This puts anyone like me at MeFi between a rock and a hard place. If you 'out' yourself as any kind of believer except, maybe, Buddhist, some MeFites will shout you down for being an unscientific, soft-headed noodly-appendage-loving self-deluding chump who perpetrates hate and cruelty in the world and don't deny it because we all know it's true look at the Inquisition, and then if you say 'but I'm actually not like that' then the response will usually be "well then, you need to talk about it MORE and get out there and fight the hate-filled Christians and stop letting them define Christianity." However, when I take them on that, and try to talk about it more and present a different definition of Christianity, I then get skewered for all the terrible things done under the banner of "Christian" and don't deny it look at the Inquisition.
How much of this angry ping-pong would any sane person be up for? It's not worth it, and you don't get treated with a lot of respect when you take up this discussion, so I'm pretty sure most MeFites who include a religion in their lives just shut up about it, like I mostly do. This isn't really a place for that kind of discussion because there are a lot of legitimately scarred people who project too many assumptions on those who admit to having a religion.
It becomes a very childish discussion overall. It comes down to being blamed for other people's ignorance; it'd be laughable if it weren't so mean-spirited.
Another point I try to make (though I don't think it gets through much of the time) is that I'm not responsible for or interested in changing other people who participate in some other branch of the Christian faith. That's their business; my business is mine. I hate it when they're hypocritical too, but I have no special 'play' with them just because we are twigs on the same limb of world religious history - many of them think I'm way wrong and misled and going to burn in hell just like all the other heathens. languagehat's comparison with Jews and Judaism is spot on: for some reason, people get the difference between Orthodox Jews and reform or cultural Jews, but are unable to extend the same perception of theological diversity when it comes to Christianity, and tend to react to a superficial impression of Christianity or to an experience with one denomination or small set of denominations.
And besides that, I believe in a humanistic government and humanistic principles in the civil sphere. I'm never going to go out and protest a bunch of Christians as another Christian. That is pointless. It doesn't matter - the end of civil society is common well-being, not determining which Christianity is better. How ridiculous. I will instead readily go out and protest a bunch of Christians as a citizen who opposes anyone trying to improperly use the civil government as an arena to deny certain groups' civil rights. To me, that's really where the rubber meets the road. I don't oppose the anti-Prop 8 voters because they're being bad Christians; I can't even speak to that, I don't know what their denominations say specifically or what their motivations really are. They probably don't go to Friends Meeting, so we don't have a ton in common. I oppose them because they're being bad Americans and bad people. Their private moral world is theirs and mine is mine, and that's perfectly all right until we meet in the commons, and in the commons our concern is protecting human rights and freedoms and access to ideas. So I reject the idea that somehow liberal Christians are required to wage a counter-war against non-liberal Christians. They are already doing it, they're just doing it in coalition with everyone else who supports the common good. The answer to any religious group seeking to control government functions is not to set up another religious group in opposition to that one, but to stand strong in the civic sphere and defend humanist values - the only rational response in a pluralistic society.
posted by Miko at 8:26 AM on May 5, 2009 [26 favorites]
Jessamyn, I would love it if you talked about anarchist politics with people discussing NPR. I have this vision of Ira Flato interviewing scientists on how to make the perfect Molotov cocktail. I am imagining that Utah Phillips track being used as a bumper before a piece on Max Stirner. Then a This American Life piece on how wireless mesh networks and OLPCs have been used to keep a far-sprawled commune working together without pre-established laws.
I'm going to have this weird broadcast of NPR from a parallel dimension in my head all day.
posted by adipocere at 8:31 AM on May 5, 2009
I'm going to have this weird broadcast of NPR from a parallel dimension in my head all day.
posted by adipocere at 8:31 AM on May 5, 2009
In the US you can assume someone is Christian unless they say otherwise, so it sometimes seems odd when they keep saying it.
This clearly isn't the case in most of the US, but the majority of my social group is Jewish and/or atheist. Coming out of the closet as Christian is fraught with peril (of the ostracization type, not the physical danger type.) As in most homogeneous groups, my group is happy to make blanket hateful statements about other groups (usually Christians and Republicans), and when you call them on it, there is ALWAYS someone who says "But I don't hate Christians! I have a cousin who's Christian and we still talk every year!" You know how it feels when you're in a group that's all the same race and they let their hair down and start making awful racist comments? Somehow where I live I end up the defender of Christians even though I'm not one myself. Metafilter can feel pretty similar, which is probably why I'm so comfortable here, but it's not its best feature.
posted by small_ruminant at 8:37 AM on May 5, 2009
This clearly isn't the case in most of the US, but the majority of my social group is Jewish and/or atheist. Coming out of the closet as Christian is fraught with peril (of the ostracization type, not the physical danger type.) As in most homogeneous groups, my group is happy to make blanket hateful statements about other groups (usually Christians and Republicans), and when you call them on it, there is ALWAYS someone who says "But I don't hate Christians! I have a cousin who's Christian and we still talk every year!" You know how it feels when you're in a group that's all the same race and they let their hair down and start making awful racist comments? Somehow where I live I end up the defender of Christians even though I'm not one myself. Metafilter can feel pretty similar, which is probably why I'm so comfortable here, but it's not its best feature.
posted by small_ruminant at 8:37 AM on May 5, 2009
Eloquently put, Miko, as always. Thanks.
posted by shiu mai baby at 8:51 AM on May 5, 2009
posted by shiu mai baby at 8:51 AM on May 5, 2009
Jessamyn is my homegirl.
posted by languagehat at 8:56 AM on May 5, 2009
posted by languagehat at 8:56 AM on May 5, 2009
I guess that all seems normal to you, since as a Christian you surely believe all those things are immoral and can't conceive of the fact that some of us don't agree. That's the problem here. We don't agree about that at all.
I'm sorry, did you have difficulty parsing my sentence structure when I wrote "my mother is a UCC minister, and has never once proselytized to me or my brother or refused to respect our beliefs-- which beliefs could charitably be described as agnostic at best." Could I be any more clear that I am not, in fact, a Christian? Are you really so blinded by your anger at your family that you can't see that it's possible for a non-Christian to respect the beliefs of a Christian, and, equally importantly, vice versa?
posted by dersins at 9:01 AM on May 5, 2009
I'm sorry, did you have difficulty parsing my sentence structure when I wrote "my mother is a UCC minister, and has never once proselytized to me or my brother or refused to respect our beliefs-- which beliefs could charitably be described as agnostic at best." Could I be any more clear that I am not, in fact, a Christian? Are you really so blinded by your anger at your family that you can't see that it's possible for a non-Christian to respect the beliefs of a Christian, and, equally importantly, vice versa?
posted by dersins at 9:01 AM on May 5, 2009
Are you a Christian?
Yep.
I still feel that Metafilter != hostile website to Christians. Yes, there are Metafilter members who hold strongly anti-Christian, anti-God, and anti-divine/organized religion, thoughts, and are quite vocal about it. Some can be very hostile, and others can be very flippant ("Wizard in the Sky"). Are the majority of FPPs based on Anti-Christian topics? No. Are the majority of comments made on a daily basis, anti-Christian? No. Do the Mods take an effort to prevent blatant LOLXtian posts and threads? Yes.
Just because Metafilter membership doesn't reflect the same percentage of Christians across the nation, and allows opinionated commentary, doesn't make hostile or unfriendly to Christians. Nor should there be any expected latitude given to the sensitivities of Christians more so than that given any group or class of individuals. We live in a free society where for the most part, we have the right to say what we want.
I'm perfectly fine with people making the comments they might, but just wish for them to understand that the horrible experiences with Christians that have soured the religion so badly for them, isn't necessarily representative of all Christians. Likewise, while I wish that such folks could see and appreciate my religion the way I do, they have a right not to be badgered or accosted. Christianity is a diverse and mult-faceted religion, with many denominations and beliefs, from the Catholic Church to the Orthodox Church to the Syrian Church to the Methodists down the street. In the same manner that it is wrong to make blanket statements about any group that is composed of many varied and different parts, it shouldn't be done with Christianity.
And toward Jessayman's post, I absolutely agree that there are some Christians who will discuss their faith, even when the listener has no interest. They shouldn't. I consider my religion more a private affair, to be discussed when asked or in the appropriate settings and circumstances. I'd rather folks have a higher opinion and interest in Christianity, not by me trying to convince them to be interested, but by setting a favorable example of how I act and live. Thus, I'm not a Christian on Metafilter, I'm a guy on Metafilter who happens to be Christian. Occasionally, I feel the need to pipe up and correct general assumptions I feel aren't accurate. A thick skin and cool mind helps for being around here, but that's true for any heated topic or discussion, not just those about Christianity, but pretty much anything that anyone can hold important in their lives and is a contentious topic.
posted by Atreides at 9:03 AM on May 5, 2009 [3 favorites]
Yep.
I still feel that Metafilter != hostile website to Christians. Yes, there are Metafilter members who hold strongly anti-Christian, anti-God, and anti-divine/organized religion, thoughts, and are quite vocal about it. Some can be very hostile, and others can be very flippant ("Wizard in the Sky"). Are the majority of FPPs based on Anti-Christian topics? No. Are the majority of comments made on a daily basis, anti-Christian? No. Do the Mods take an effort to prevent blatant LOLXtian posts and threads? Yes.
Just because Metafilter membership doesn't reflect the same percentage of Christians across the nation, and allows opinionated commentary, doesn't make hostile or unfriendly to Christians. Nor should there be any expected latitude given to the sensitivities of Christians more so than that given any group or class of individuals. We live in a free society where for the most part, we have the right to say what we want.
I'm perfectly fine with people making the comments they might, but just wish for them to understand that the horrible experiences with Christians that have soured the religion so badly for them, isn't necessarily representative of all Christians. Likewise, while I wish that such folks could see and appreciate my religion the way I do, they have a right not to be badgered or accosted. Christianity is a diverse and mult-faceted religion, with many denominations and beliefs, from the Catholic Church to the Orthodox Church to the Syrian Church to the Methodists down the street. In the same manner that it is wrong to make blanket statements about any group that is composed of many varied and different parts, it shouldn't be done with Christianity.
And toward Jessayman's post, I absolutely agree that there are some Christians who will discuss their faith, even when the listener has no interest. They shouldn't. I consider my religion more a private affair, to be discussed when asked or in the appropriate settings and circumstances. I'd rather folks have a higher opinion and interest in Christianity, not by me trying to convince them to be interested, but by setting a favorable example of how I act and live. Thus, I'm not a Christian on Metafilter, I'm a guy on Metafilter who happens to be Christian. Occasionally, I feel the need to pipe up and correct general assumptions I feel aren't accurate. A thick skin and cool mind helps for being around here, but that's true for any heated topic or discussion, not just those about Christianity, but pretty much anything that anyone can hold important in their lives and is a contentious topic.
posted by Atreides at 9:03 AM on May 5, 2009 [3 favorites]
In the US you can assume someone is Christian unless they say otherwise, so it sometimes seems odd when they keep saying it.
Yeah, that took me aback a little. After considering I suppose it's probably true. But something that maybe informs my approach to religion is that I grew up in a really diverse area of New Jersey outside of New York, and one thing I learned both formally and socially was to make no assumptions about religion. In that area, there were Catholics and various Protestants, Russian and Greek Orthodox, various kinds of Jews, athiests and agnostics, Buddhists and Muslims and Hindus. I don't generally assume that Christianity is dominant, and it took spending the bulk of my adult life in New England and traveling in the Midwest and spending time with relatives in the South to realize that yeah, it probably is the default outside major urban areas. That's a pity. But it definitely informs my idea of the commons that I grew up understanding that there were a lot of worldviews, but that you could live and go to school and hang out together anyway, and chances are we are never going to determine one to be Correct so perhaps we can drop that question.
posted by Miko at 9:03 AM on May 5, 2009
Yeah, that took me aback a little. After considering I suppose it's probably true. But something that maybe informs my approach to religion is that I grew up in a really diverse area of New Jersey outside of New York, and one thing I learned both formally and socially was to make no assumptions about religion. In that area, there were Catholics and various Protestants, Russian and Greek Orthodox, various kinds of Jews, athiests and agnostics, Buddhists and Muslims and Hindus. I don't generally assume that Christianity is dominant, and it took spending the bulk of my adult life in New England and traveling in the Midwest and spending time with relatives in the South to realize that yeah, it probably is the default outside major urban areas. That's a pity. But it definitely informs my idea of the commons that I grew up understanding that there were a lot of worldviews, but that you could live and go to school and hang out together anyway, and chances are we are never going to determine one to be Correct so perhaps we can drop that question.
posted by Miko at 9:03 AM on May 5, 2009
Not only did I not say or imply that, I know damn well you don't think I did, which means your comment is disingenuous and you should be ashamed of yourself for making it.
Hey languagehat, how you doing today?
Anyway, apologies for the miss communication, I really did interpret it that way and I'm kinda surprised you actually used that analogy and expect it to turn out another way. To me, the original line of reasoning of "a person has had bad experiences with Christians and they don't want to hear any Christian advice" is pretty straightforward and understandable. It's technically wrong, sure, but is what they know and calling them names isn't going to change their mind. An analogy using Jews instead of Christians probably won't do it either, as the Jews are still a religion and have a separate issues and baggage which just muddies this particular issue further.
"Help"? What does that mean? Is MetaFilter a self-help site? I thought we were all about shining the light of snark-filled truth on a universe filled with darkness and deception. The fact is that ignorant bigots are ignorant and bigoted, and I'm telling it like it is. It's not surprising that bigots won't like it. Fuck 'em.
Ideally, as individuals, we'd be working to help the ignorant and bigoted be less ignorant and bigoted, so when I say "I am sure that calling someone ignorant, irrational and bigoted doesn't help," what I mean is that pointing out peoples flaws generally doesn't work. They get defensive and close up and stopping listening. You may be telling it like it is, but are you doing anything positive, are you changing that person's thought process, their prejudices? If not, then you should probably try a different tactic, otherwise everyone is talking and no one is listening, maybe, just maybe, learning.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 9:15 AM on May 5, 2009
Hey languagehat, how you doing today?
Anyway, apologies for the miss communication, I really did interpret it that way and I'm kinda surprised you actually used that analogy and expect it to turn out another way. To me, the original line of reasoning of "a person has had bad experiences with Christians and they don't want to hear any Christian advice" is pretty straightforward and understandable. It's technically wrong, sure, but is what they know and calling them names isn't going to change their mind. An analogy using Jews instead of Christians probably won't do it either, as the Jews are still a religion and have a separate issues and baggage which just muddies this particular issue further.
"Help"? What does that mean? Is MetaFilter a self-help site? I thought we were all about shining the light of snark-filled truth on a universe filled with darkness and deception. The fact is that ignorant bigots are ignorant and bigoted, and I'm telling it like it is. It's not surprising that bigots won't like it. Fuck 'em.
Ideally, as individuals, we'd be working to help the ignorant and bigoted be less ignorant and bigoted, so when I say "I am sure that calling someone ignorant, irrational and bigoted doesn't help," what I mean is that pointing out peoples flaws generally doesn't work. They get defensive and close up and stopping listening. You may be telling it like it is, but are you doing anything positive, are you changing that person's thought process, their prejudices? If not, then you should probably try a different tactic, otherwise everyone is talking and no one is listening, maybe, just maybe, learning.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 9:15 AM on May 5, 2009
Now, when 84% of the voting weekly churchgoers voted Yes on Proposition 8, you either have to radically redefine the phrase "tiny minority" or you have to pretend that there's an enormous correlation between voting and attending church weekly.
Are you seriously trying to take numbers from a religiously hot-button issue in a single state and apply them to the population at large? You're conflating "weekly churchgoers who voted Yes on California prop 8" with "Christian" (these numbers also happen to be from a news org's exit poll that was found to be flawed: the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force found that the number of weekly church goer who voted yes was 70%. But that's by the way).
posted by oneirodynia at 9:30 AM on May 5, 2009
Are you seriously trying to take numbers from a religiously hot-button issue in a single state and apply them to the population at large? You're conflating "weekly churchgoers who voted Yes on California prop 8" with "Christian" (these numbers also happen to be from a news org's exit poll that was found to be flawed: the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force found that the number of weekly church goer who voted yes was 70%. But that's by the way).
posted by oneirodynia at 9:30 AM on May 5, 2009
Also not because anyone asked but we'll delete those apropos of nothing "wizard in the sky" comments when we see them esp if they're starting a fight (and not participating on one that seems to have already been in progress) the same way we'll delete the occasional really weird "you're all sinners" comments that we see because they're both pretty antithetical to creating a community of at least some level of respect.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 9:33 AM on May 5, 2009
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 9:33 AM on May 5, 2009
the Jews are still a religion and have a separate issues and baggage which just muddies this particular issue further.
I think that's what languagehat was trying to point out: Judaism is "a religion," but not in the sense that it's a specific denomination. Judaism is not monolithic. There is an enormous range of beliefs and practices within Judaism. If you grew up, say, in an liberal or reformed Judaism household you might have one idea of what "Judaism" is based on that experience, but you actually would have very little practice and belief in common with someone who grew up in an Orthodox household (noting that there's no one "Orthodox Judaism," or "Progressive Judaism" there are sects and groups within even those which disagree on things). It would be kind of ridiculous for someone to tell you "How can you be opart of such an awful restrictive religion, that totally rejects homosexuality as a disease or a desire to piss of God, and doesn't allow women to participate in religious leadership and scholarship and requires head covering and considers menstruation unclean - how oppressive and cruel and anti-human-rights!" You might respond "uh, I don't believe any of that." So it would be equally ridiculous for someone to say "But you are still responsible for it! Go tell your awful oppressive brethren to stop being like that!" The only response would be "hey, my set of beliefs split off from those practices a long time ago, and we have only a categorical relationship at this point. They don't consider me one of their own, I'm an apostate, and I don't consider myself one of theirs. So kindly don't equate my beliefs with this much more restrictive and conservative set of beliefs."
posted by Miko at 9:41 AM on May 5, 2009
I think that's what languagehat was trying to point out: Judaism is "a religion," but not in the sense that it's a specific denomination. Judaism is not monolithic. There is an enormous range of beliefs and practices within Judaism. If you grew up, say, in an liberal or reformed Judaism household you might have one idea of what "Judaism" is based on that experience, but you actually would have very little practice and belief in common with someone who grew up in an Orthodox household (noting that there's no one "Orthodox Judaism," or "Progressive Judaism" there are sects and groups within even those which disagree on things). It would be kind of ridiculous for someone to tell you "How can you be opart of such an awful restrictive religion, that totally rejects homosexuality as a disease or a desire to piss of God, and doesn't allow women to participate in religious leadership and scholarship and requires head covering and considers menstruation unclean - how oppressive and cruel and anti-human-rights!" You might respond "uh, I don't believe any of that." So it would be equally ridiculous for someone to say "But you are still responsible for it! Go tell your awful oppressive brethren to stop being like that!" The only response would be "hey, my set of beliefs split off from those practices a long time ago, and we have only a categorical relationship at this point. They don't consider me one of their own, I'm an apostate, and I don't consider myself one of theirs. So kindly don't equate my beliefs with this much more restrictive and conservative set of beliefs."
posted by Miko at 9:41 AM on May 5, 2009
Anyway, apologies for the miss communication, I really did interpret it that way and I'm kinda surprised you actually used that analogy and expect it to turn out another way.
That's... surprising. I mean, I know you're an intelligent guy and are aware of analogy, and it seems bizarre to me that you can interpret an analogy to anti-Semitism as a claim that anti-Christians are anti-Semites. But I believe you and withdraw my accusation of disingenuousness. Thanks for clarifying.
what I mean is that pointing out peoples flaws generally doesn't work. They get defensive and close up and stopping listening.
While I admire that attitude and try to practice it when it seems likely to do some good, I frankly have no expectation that any of the bigots I'm talking about are going to change their bigoted ideas no matter how patiently and rationally I point out the contradictions and mistaken assumptions. After all, more patient people than I (hi, Miko!) have been doing it for years, to no apparent result. If you can point me to a single example of someone saying "You know, I've been saying bad things about Christians and Christianity all my life, but now that you've explained to me how wrong that is, I'm going to change my ways," I'll change my own thinking and try to extend them a little more courtesy.
posted by languagehat at 9:49 AM on May 5, 2009
That's... surprising. I mean, I know you're an intelligent guy and are aware of analogy, and it seems bizarre to me that you can interpret an analogy to anti-Semitism as a claim that anti-Christians are anti-Semites. But I believe you and withdraw my accusation of disingenuousness. Thanks for clarifying.
what I mean is that pointing out peoples flaws generally doesn't work. They get defensive and close up and stopping listening.
While I admire that attitude and try to practice it when it seems likely to do some good, I frankly have no expectation that any of the bigots I'm talking about are going to change their bigoted ideas no matter how patiently and rationally I point out the contradictions and mistaken assumptions. After all, more patient people than I (hi, Miko!) have been doing it for years, to no apparent result. If you can point me to a single example of someone saying "You know, I've been saying bad things about Christians and Christianity all my life, but now that you've explained to me how wrong that is, I'm going to change my ways," I'll change my own thinking and try to extend them a little more courtesy.
posted by languagehat at 9:49 AM on May 5, 2009
Languagehat - I really do think that a lot of people who carry these Christian stereotypes do so out of ignorance of the diversity of Christian beliefs and cultures and that making people aware of that reality - gracefully and politely, as Miko is so good at - can change their attitudes, in the near or longer term. For those whose ideas about Christianity come solely from either a negative experience with a fundamentalist church (which churches tend to be adamant that their definition of Christian is the only one) or from media coverage of political right-wing Christianity, there really is a lack of knowledge about the more tolerant flavors of Christianity.
I think the "have been doing it for years to no apparent result" issue is that even if some people do start to take a broader perspective, there's an unending supply of folks who pop up with the same preconceptions. So it does start to feel like you're in a rut, but it may be a rut with a constantly changing cast of characters.
posted by yarrow at 10:42 AM on May 5, 2009
I think the "have been doing it for years to no apparent result" issue is that even if some people do start to take a broader perspective, there's an unending supply of folks who pop up with the same preconceptions. So it does start to feel like you're in a rut, but it may be a rut with a constantly changing cast of characters.
posted by yarrow at 10:42 AM on May 5, 2009
lh,
I'm black and occasionally make a point of saying so on Metafilter, just so the mostly white membership of Metafilter knows certain things are coming from a different and black perspective. Partially this is done because of the still crappy image of blacks in mass media and I want to present something more three dimensional to people. Because of that, I occasionally get mefimails from other members wanting to ask a question about black people, but they don't know blacks or they feel the question is kinda silly or racist, but I seem kinda reasonable and hey, it's just MefiMail, so what the hell they say, can I ask you a question 'bout black people? They ask, I answer, we talk a bit and we're both a little less ignorant.
Previously on Metafilter, I've been involved in the gender and sexism discussions and arguably, at times ferociously, a non-feminist view. But over time, with a bit of thought and listening to some very smart people (Hi Miko! Hi allen.spaulding!) I've changed my views on the subject a bit and might even take a gender class or two when I return to school.
No, I can't think of any specific examples of the Christian kind you ask for, but that's natural, I think. Rarely do people make sudden changes in their beliefs and rarely still do they articulate those beliefs, let alone to the public. But I can't help but notice that comments like lleachie's and Pater Aletheias' get noticed and favorited and I think bits of change occur when people read them and they willingly remove a brick or two from their personal walls. So no, we probably won't get to see the change, but that doesn't mean change isn't occurring.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 10:58 AM on May 5, 2009 [1 favorite]
I'm black and occasionally make a point of saying so on Metafilter, just so the mostly white membership of Metafilter knows certain things are coming from a different and black perspective. Partially this is done because of the still crappy image of blacks in mass media and I want to present something more three dimensional to people. Because of that, I occasionally get mefimails from other members wanting to ask a question about black people, but they don't know blacks or they feel the question is kinda silly or racist, but I seem kinda reasonable and hey, it's just MefiMail, so what the hell they say, can I ask you a question 'bout black people? They ask, I answer, we talk a bit and we're both a little less ignorant.
Previously on Metafilter, I've been involved in the gender and sexism discussions and arguably, at times ferociously, a non-feminist view. But over time, with a bit of thought and listening to some very smart people (Hi Miko! Hi allen.spaulding!) I've changed my views on the subject a bit and might even take a gender class or two when I return to school.
No, I can't think of any specific examples of the Christian kind you ask for, but that's natural, I think. Rarely do people make sudden changes in their beliefs and rarely still do they articulate those beliefs, let alone to the public. But I can't help but notice that comments like lleachie's and Pater Aletheias' get noticed and favorited and I think bits of change occur when people read them and they willingly remove a brick or two from their personal walls. So no, we probably won't get to see the change, but that doesn't mean change isn't occurring.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 10:58 AM on May 5, 2009 [1 favorite]
And I totally agree with Jessamyn that it's not really good manners to run into every discussion blathering about your religious beliefs. That kind of unasked-for input can definitely be rude. But occasionally something comes up that a lot of people are interested in discussing, and religion can play a part. I think for instance of the Obama/Jeremiah Wright discussion. I found some of that awesome and I learned quite a bit about Black Liberation Theology in the process. The discussions of how an agnostic can deal with death, and of abortion, that have come up recently have certainly brought in religious thought in a more legitimate and relevant way. So it's not that I think MeFi needs to be BeliefNet and people should talk religion all the time, I just think we could recognize that occasionally it's relevant to the topic or question, and have more of a culture where people with some different perspectives to offer on the topic don't get shouted at because of things that are misattributed to them rather than because of their own actual beliefs, statements and actions (for which they are definitely responsible).
posted by Miko at 11:09 AM on May 5, 2009
posted by Miko at 11:09 AM on May 5, 2009
Christianity is the same way - not monolithic.
It's monolithic enough. Enough so to have seriously detrimental effects on the human condition. I wish there was some honesty about that.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 11:21 AM on May 5, 2009
It's monolithic enough. Enough so to have seriously detrimental effects on the human condition. I wish there was some honesty about that.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 11:21 AM on May 5, 2009
It's monolithic enough. Enough so to have seriously detrimental effects on the human condition.
And we were just beginning to have a reasonable conversation about this. Would you care to attempt to support this assertion, or are you just trolling?
posted by dersins at 11:27 AM on May 5, 2009 [2 favorites]
And we were just beginning to have a reasonable conversation about this. Would you care to attempt to support this assertion, or are you just trolling?
posted by dersins at 11:27 AM on May 5, 2009 [2 favorites]
languagehat's comparison with Jews and Judaism is spot on: for some reason, people get the difference between Orthodox Jews and reform or cultural Jews, but are unable to extend the same perception of theological diversity when it comes to Christianity, and tend to react to a superficial impression of Christianity or to an experience with one denomination or small set of denominations.
Thanks, Miko (and languagehat)--that was a helpful comment from beginning to end. I will add to languagehat's analogy (though this thread is already too full of analogies): What if a moderate Muslim respectfully asked if his or her insights would be unwelcome in an askme thread? Would the answer be, You might have decent insights, but don't blame the poster if his opinion of Muslims is based on the people behind 9/11? You know, people who would blow themselves up and kill hundreds (or thousands) because of the virgins they anticipate in the next life? Sorry if that's not you, but your religion is defined by a vocal and newsworthy minority, so deal with it.
Some Christians have a persecution complex. This is true. I know; my upbringing was informed by this kind of thinking. Some of this is comfirmation bias; Jesus himself said, "Blessed are you when others persecute you." Some of it may be based in genuine negative experiences with people who don't share the same beliefs. And some of it is because humans generally prefer to see themselves as underdogs, as the ones who have problems rather than the ones causing problems for others.
On this topic, cj_, it is silly to project from the dominance of Christianity in the U.S. to the situation of Christians the world over:
Christimanity is thoroughly entrenched in every level of culture in the United States, and it does strike me as ridiculous when the least repressed demographic in the entire world starts in with the "help! help! I'm being repressed!"
In fact, Christians in many parts of the world are very much repressed.
I personally am agnostic at this point in my life, yet I believe a great deal of truth can be found in the teachings of Jesus. I do not think it should be assumed that everyone who shares this belief is ALSO out there picketing against same-sex marriage, contraceptives, "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas," etc.
posted by torticat at 11:39 AM on May 5, 2009
Thanks, Miko (and languagehat)--that was a helpful comment from beginning to end. I will add to languagehat's analogy (though this thread is already too full of analogies): What if a moderate Muslim respectfully asked if his or her insights would be unwelcome in an askme thread? Would the answer be, You might have decent insights, but don't blame the poster if his opinion of Muslims is based on the people behind 9/11? You know, people who would blow themselves up and kill hundreds (or thousands) because of the virgins they anticipate in the next life? Sorry if that's not you, but your religion is defined by a vocal and newsworthy minority, so deal with it.
Some Christians have a persecution complex. This is true. I know; my upbringing was informed by this kind of thinking. Some of this is comfirmation bias; Jesus himself said, "Blessed are you when others persecute you." Some of it may be based in genuine negative experiences with people who don't share the same beliefs. And some of it is because humans generally prefer to see themselves as underdogs, as the ones who have problems rather than the ones causing problems for others.
On this topic, cj_, it is silly to project from the dominance of Christianity in the U.S. to the situation of Christians the world over:
Christimanity is thoroughly entrenched in every level of culture in the United States, and it does strike me as ridiculous when the least repressed demographic in the entire world starts in with the "help! help! I'm being repressed!"
In fact, Christians in many parts of the world are very much repressed.
I personally am agnostic at this point in my life, yet I believe a great deal of truth can be found in the teachings of Jesus. I do not think it should be assumed that everyone who shares this belief is ALSO out there picketing against same-sex marriage, contraceptives, "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas," etc.
posted by torticat at 11:39 AM on May 5, 2009
And we were just beginning to have a reasonable conversation about this... [A]re you just trolling?
The fact that someone disagrees and you respond by accusations of unreasonableness and trolling only serves to prove the point.
Nonetheless, in the last several decades we've seen social policies towards non-Christians influenced if not outright decided by Christians, in many detrimental ways. At the very least, I can count several civil rights and non-Christian religious freedoms among those aspects negatively impacted by the undue influence this one particular religious group. Honesty about it may be too much to ask for, but reality is what it is.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 11:48 AM on May 5, 2009
The fact that someone disagrees and you respond by accusations of unreasonableness and trolling only serves to prove the point.
Nonetheless, in the last several decades we've seen social policies towards non-Christians influenced if not outright decided by Christians, in many detrimental ways. At the very least, I can count several civil rights and non-Christian religious freedoms among those aspects negatively impacted by the undue influence this one particular religious group. Honesty about it may be too much to ask for, but reality is what it is.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 11:48 AM on May 5, 2009
Did you read Miko's comments? I think they are talking to you.
posted by small_ruminant at 12:01 PM on May 5, 2009
posted by small_ruminant at 12:01 PM on May 5, 2009
I'm going to pause here and remind people what was written in the original post:
What if a moderate Muslim respectfully asked if his or her insights would be unwelcome in an askme thread? Would the answer be, You might have decent insights, but don't blame the poster if his opinion of Muslims is based on the people behind 9/11?
Perhaps, if a person specifically requested that they not get Muslim tinged advice.
If the person's only contact with Muslims was when they lost a loved one/their job/whatever on 9/11, it's understandable they might have negative feelings about about Muslims. It's not right or fair or rational, but it is human and it what that particular person is feeling. Seriously, let it go, you're probably not going to do anything by injecting Muslim this or Muslim that into the discussion, you two are going to be talking and reacting to differently, even if you think it's about the same subject. Trying to paint the person as someone horrible because you think they said you and yours are horrible, when they didn't, isn't going to change their mind, isn't going to fix anything and isn't going to convince them of how good your religion, really, really is. Let. it. go.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 12:02 PM on May 5, 2009
So please, no Western religion. At all. You can argue that my lack of Faith is the root cause of my depression, but at this point, I choose to find some other coping mechanism.The person didn't say all of Western religion was bad, that Christians are awful or equate them or anyone else with 9/11. So we can sit here and throw out analogy's all day and discuss what Christianity means and how wrong this is or that is, but frankly if a person can't get the point that they just don't want X kind of advice and accept it and move on, then that may not only enforcing, but validating the original poster's belief.
What if a moderate Muslim respectfully asked if his or her insights would be unwelcome in an askme thread? Would the answer be, You might have decent insights, but don't blame the poster if his opinion of Muslims is based on the people behind 9/11?
Perhaps, if a person specifically requested that they not get Muslim tinged advice.
If the person's only contact with Muslims was when they lost a loved one/their job/whatever on 9/11, it's understandable they might have negative feelings about about Muslims. It's not right or fair or rational, but it is human and it what that particular person is feeling. Seriously, let it go, you're probably not going to do anything by injecting Muslim this or Muslim that into the discussion, you two are going to be talking and reacting to differently, even if you think it's about the same subject. Trying to paint the person as someone horrible because you think they said you and yours are horrible, when they didn't, isn't going to change their mind, isn't going to fix anything and isn't going to convince them of how good your religion, really, really is. Let. it. go.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 12:02 PM on May 5, 2009
> Previously on Metafilter, I've been involved in the gender and sexism discussions and arguably, at times ferociously, a non-feminist view. But over time, with a bit of thought and listening to some very smart people (Hi Miko! Hi allen.spaulding!) I've changed my views on the subject a bit and might even take a gender class or two when I return to school.
No, I can't think of any specific examples of the Christian kind you ask for, but that's natural, I think. Rarely do people make sudden changes in their beliefs and rarely still do they articulate those beliefs, let alone to the public. But I can't help but notice that comments like lleachie's and Pater Aletheias' get noticed and favorited and I think bits of change occur when people read them and they willingly remove a brick or two from their personal walls. So no, we probably won't get to see the change, but that doesn't mean change isn't occurring.
OK, that's fair enough, and the comparison to the feminism threads is reasonable. I'll try to count to ten and emulate Miko as best I can.
BP, you're really not helping.
posted by languagehat at 12:03 PM on May 5, 2009 [1 favorite]
No, I can't think of any specific examples of the Christian kind you ask for, but that's natural, I think. Rarely do people make sudden changes in their beliefs and rarely still do they articulate those beliefs, let alone to the public. But I can't help but notice that comments like lleachie's and Pater Aletheias' get noticed and favorited and I think bits of change occur when people read them and they willingly remove a brick or two from their personal walls. So no, we probably won't get to see the change, but that doesn't mean change isn't occurring.
OK, that's fair enough, and the comparison to the feminism threads is reasonable. I'll try to count to ten and emulate Miko as best I can.
BP, you're really not helping.
posted by languagehat at 12:03 PM on May 5, 2009 [1 favorite]
Nonetheless, in the last several decades we've seen social policies towards non-Christians influenced if not outright decided by Christians, in many detrimental ways.
This is simply untrue. We have seen those changes influenced and / or outright decided by some Christians, not by "Christians." If you think Christians are monolithic in this way, then you know very little about Christians.
Do you think the UCC (an explicitly Christian denomination) or the Quakers (also Christian) or the Unitarian Universalists (many of whom self-identify as Christian) are trying to deny equal rights to anybody? Do you also think that "The Muslims" are all terrorists bent on suicide bombings?
Why is it so difficult for people to understand the simple fact that not all Christians believe exactly the same things when it comes to tolerance and social issues?
posted by dersins at 12:05 PM on May 5, 2009
This is simply untrue. We have seen those changes influenced and / or outright decided by some Christians, not by "Christians." If you think Christians are monolithic in this way, then you know very little about Christians.
Do you think the UCC (an explicitly Christian denomination) or the Quakers (also Christian) or the Unitarian Universalists (many of whom self-identify as Christian) are trying to deny equal rights to anybody? Do you also think that "The Muslims" are all terrorists bent on suicide bombings?
Why is it so difficult for people to understand the simple fact that not all Christians believe exactly the same things when it comes to tolerance and social issues?
posted by dersins at 12:05 PM on May 5, 2009
Thanks, Miko.
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 12:27 PM on May 5, 2009
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 12:27 PM on May 5, 2009
This is simply untrue. We have seen those changes influenced and / or outright decided by some Christians, not by "Christians." If you think Christians are monolithic in this way, then you know very little about Christians.
That's a pretty uncharitable reading of BP's statement, dersins. Especially since his statement was factually correct. You feel compelled to add the "some" without noting that he never added the "all." Of course not all Christians are guilty of abusing their power in numbers to disenfranchise non-Christians. But qualify it however you want, it's also still true that non-Christians are regularly disenfranchised by Christians in this country. You're both right, and maybe the conversation could benefit from giving each other the benefit of the doubt.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 12:49 PM on May 5, 2009 [1 favorite]
That's a pretty uncharitable reading of BP's statement, dersins. Especially since his statement was factually correct. You feel compelled to add the "some" without noting that he never added the "all." Of course not all Christians are guilty of abusing their power in numbers to disenfranchise non-Christians. But qualify it however you want, it's also still true that non-Christians are regularly disenfranchised by Christians in this country. You're both right, and maybe the conversation could benefit from giving each other the benefit of the doubt.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 12:49 PM on May 5, 2009 [1 favorite]
Please note also that I'm using the term "disenfranchised" pretty loosely to convey a general sense of the subject without going into boring detail. I don't intend it in the more literal sense.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 12:53 PM on May 5, 2009
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 12:53 PM on May 5, 2009
it's also still true that non-Christians are regularly disenfranchised by Christians in this country
And it's just as true that plenty of Christians (e.g. gay, minority, female) are regularly disenfranchised by Christians in this country. Becoming a Christian doesn't mean you get a super-secret decoder ring that protects you from the horrible things being perpetrated by those in power, some of whom do these odious things under the banner of "it's what Jesus would want!"
posted by shiu mai baby at 12:58 PM on May 5, 2009
And it's just as true that plenty of Christians (e.g. gay, minority, female) are regularly disenfranchised by Christians in this country. Becoming a Christian doesn't mean you get a super-secret decoder ring that protects you from the horrible things being perpetrated by those in power, some of whom do these odious things under the banner of "it's what Jesus would want!"
posted by shiu mai baby at 12:58 PM on May 5, 2009
BP, you're really not helping.
I'm sorry, but I really don't see apologia as helpful. Shining a bit of light on this subject would be helpful, I think, instead of sweeping it under the rug, just because a few followers do not espouse the views of their group as a whole. Discounting legitimate criticism of the negative effects that a larger group has on society by calling it unreasonable or trolling is not helpful. Feeding their persecution complex is not helpful.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 1:00 PM on May 5, 2009
I'm sorry, but I really don't see apologia as helpful. Shining a bit of light on this subject would be helpful, I think, instead of sweeping it under the rug, just because a few followers do not espouse the views of their group as a whole. Discounting legitimate criticism of the negative effects that a larger group has on society by calling it unreasonable or trolling is not helpful. Feeding their persecution complex is not helpful.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 1:00 PM on May 5, 2009
You feel compelled to add the "some" without noting that he never added the "all."
Maybe I am getting unreasonably more het up about this than is necessary, but given his earlier statement that Christianity is monolithic, his sweeping statement that "Christians" decide matters of social policy for non-Christians strongly implies the "all," and I was reacting to that.
posted by dersins at 1:03 PM on May 5, 2009
Maybe I am getting unreasonably more het up about this than is necessary, but given his earlier statement that Christianity is monolithic, his sweeping statement that "Christians" decide matters of social policy for non-Christians strongly implies the "all," and I was reacting to that.
posted by dersins at 1:03 PM on May 5, 2009
given his earlier statement that Christianity is monolithic
I said that it's monolithic enough, with respect to the negative side effects. Which you confirmed by leveling unfair accusations at another person.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 1:08 PM on May 5, 2009
I said that it's monolithic enough, with respect to the negative side effects. Which you confirmed by leveling unfair accusations at another person.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 1:08 PM on May 5, 2009
Discounting legitimate criticism of the negative effects that a larger group has on society by calling it unreasonable or trolling is not helpful.
Agreed. And I don't want you to think I'm discounting your very legitimate point that some (or even many) Christians are decidedly un-little-c-christian in their attitude and tolerance. But please also understand that my "are you trolling" question came after you dropped an unsupported and inaccurate "Christianity is monolithic" statement into a conversation that was doing a pretty good job of explaining exactly why that isn't the case. I hope you can see why I had that reaction.
posted by dersins at 1:08 PM on May 5, 2009
Agreed. And I don't want you to think I'm discounting your very legitimate point that some (or even many) Christians are decidedly un-little-c-christian in their attitude and tolerance. But please also understand that my "are you trolling" question came after you dropped an unsupported and inaccurate "Christianity is monolithic" statement into a conversation that was doing a pretty good job of explaining exactly why that isn't the case. I hope you can see why I had that reaction.
posted by dersins at 1:08 PM on May 5, 2009
I said that it's monolithic enough, with respect to the negative side effects. Which you confirmed by leveling unfair accusations at another person.
I'm sorry, I genuinely don't understand what you mean with either of these statements. Especially the second one, extra-especially given the fact that, as I have stated repeatedly in this very thread, I myself am not a Christian.
posted by dersins at 1:12 PM on May 5, 2009
I'm sorry, I genuinely don't understand what you mean with either of these statements. Especially the second one, extra-especially given the fact that, as I have stated repeatedly in this very thread, I myself am not a Christian.
posted by dersins at 1:12 PM on May 5, 2009
And it's just as true that plenty of Christians (e.g. gay, minority, female) are regularly disenfranchised by Christians in this country.
I couldn't agree more.
I find this conversation very similar to conversations in which (some) white males feel the need to repeatedly point out that they aren't bigots/sexist and don't personally have any special freedoms that minorities/women don't have, and that they are tired of hearing about racism/sexism because just being a white male doesn't mean you're privileged. An argument that doesn't generally go over very well around here.
The fact that certain factions and individuals within a majority group do not personally benefit from their belonging, or may even actively fight against injustice doesn't magically absolve the majority from aknowledging the power imbalance or taking responsibility for the consequences.
And despite the hard feelings on display here, I would be surprised if anyone here actually disagrees with this.
Can't we all just get along?
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 1:16 PM on May 5, 2009 [3 favorites]
I couldn't agree more.
I find this conversation very similar to conversations in which (some) white males feel the need to repeatedly point out that they aren't bigots/sexist and don't personally have any special freedoms that minorities/women don't have, and that they are tired of hearing about racism/sexism because just being a white male doesn't mean you're privileged. An argument that doesn't generally go over very well around here.
The fact that certain factions and individuals within a majority group do not personally benefit from their belonging, or may even actively fight against injustice doesn't magically absolve the majority from aknowledging the power imbalance or taking responsibility for the consequences.
And despite the hard feelings on display here, I would be surprised if anyone here actually disagrees with this.
Can't we all just get along?
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 1:16 PM on May 5, 2009 [3 favorites]
, just because a few followers do not espouse the views of their group as a whole.
This is exactly the misconception that needs addressing. Entire denominations with lengthy historical and theological underpinnings for their belief systems are not "a few followers," and there are no "views of" the "group as a whole." There is not really a "group as a whole," there are many different kinds of Christians who do share historical roots and many characteristics, but who disagree, sometimes vehemently, on dogma and practice. Railing against "Christianity" makes no sense because there is no one to answer for it. Who do you mean? What specific practice do you object to? Which denominations and/or church(es) espouse that practice? What is the membership and leadership within that church responsible for promulgating that practice?
That's who to address the complaints to, if you have them. Railing against "Christianity" is like railing against "the System" or "the Man" - it's not specific. It doesn't put anyone in a position of responsibility, or even ability to respond. Figure out exactly what you're objecting to and who's doing it, and object to that.
posted by Miko at 1:18 PM on May 5, 2009 [3 favorites]
This is exactly the misconception that needs addressing. Entire denominations with lengthy historical and theological underpinnings for their belief systems are not "a few followers," and there are no "views of" the "group as a whole." There is not really a "group as a whole," there are many different kinds of Christians who do share historical roots and many characteristics, but who disagree, sometimes vehemently, on dogma and practice. Railing against "Christianity" makes no sense because there is no one to answer for it. Who do you mean? What specific practice do you object to? Which denominations and/or church(es) espouse that practice? What is the membership and leadership within that church responsible for promulgating that practice?
That's who to address the complaints to, if you have them. Railing against "Christianity" is like railing against "the System" or "the Man" - it's not specific. It doesn't put anyone in a position of responsibility, or even ability to respond. Figure out exactly what you're objecting to and who's doing it, and object to that.
posted by Miko at 1:18 PM on May 5, 2009 [3 favorites]
Politicians don't have to sub-divide Christianity to make an effective appeal to a significant portion of the population, for *some* ideas, like "the anti-gay".
When it comes to abortion, there's definitely a huge difference in approach, between Catholic and Protestant audiences, but still an unspoken, and again effective, assumption that "if christian, then abortion=bad".
Sounds kinda monolithic from that perspective.
Also, the UCC, at 1.2 million members worldwide, as compared to, say, Methodists, with 70 million members worldwide, doesn't seem like an honest effort in portraying the average "christian" belief system or experience.
posted by nomisxid at 1:31 PM on May 5, 2009 [1 favorite]
When it comes to abortion, there's definitely a huge difference in approach, between Catholic and Protestant audiences, but still an unspoken, and again effective, assumption that "if christian, then abortion=bad".
Sounds kinda monolithic from that perspective.
Also, the UCC, at 1.2 million members worldwide, as compared to, say, Methodists, with 70 million members worldwide, doesn't seem like an honest effort in portraying the average "christian" belief system or experience.
posted by nomisxid at 1:31 PM on May 5, 2009 [1 favorite]
there are no "views of" the "group as a whole"
Your position is laudable but is not reflected in evidence. Christianity is nowhere near as decentralized a social entity as you seem to argue. Most of its sects -- many of which share several core values and political causes, even if they do not agree on technicalities -- are hierarchical and patriarchal, as they have been throughout history. This reflects on their desire to remold society in their image.
There may be some small sects that disagree with the general tenor and approach of the group as a whole -- some may label themselves Christian, but are even denied that by their fellow worshippers -- but to deny that there is significant overlap between most of them is to deny reality, even if it feels righteous to claim otherwise.
like railing against "the System" or "the Man" - it's not specific. It doesn't put anyone in a position of responsibility, or even ability to respond
By that reasoning, by denying any commonalities whatsoever, no individuals could be held responsible for the actions of their faith. That's a non-starter, because that's how we already do things now: no one is responsible. Instead, perhaps members of these sects that claim to have issues with the negative effects of their religion look inwards and work to change other followers, instead of blaming Muslims, atheists, Jews, etc. for "persecuting" them.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 1:36 PM on May 5, 2009
Your position is laudable but is not reflected in evidence. Christianity is nowhere near as decentralized a social entity as you seem to argue. Most of its sects -- many of which share several core values and political causes, even if they do not agree on technicalities -- are hierarchical and patriarchal, as they have been throughout history. This reflects on their desire to remold society in their image.
There may be some small sects that disagree with the general tenor and approach of the group as a whole -- some may label themselves Christian, but are even denied that by their fellow worshippers -- but to deny that there is significant overlap between most of them is to deny reality, even if it feels righteous to claim otherwise.
like railing against "the System" or "the Man" - it's not specific. It doesn't put anyone in a position of responsibility, or even ability to respond
By that reasoning, by denying any commonalities whatsoever, no individuals could be held responsible for the actions of their faith. That's a non-starter, because that's how we already do things now: no one is responsible. Instead, perhaps members of these sects that claim to have issues with the negative effects of their religion look inwards and work to change other followers, instead of blaming Muslims, atheists, Jews, etc. for "persecuting" them.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 1:36 PM on May 5, 2009
I believe the point is that "Christianity" is a heading covering such a broad spectrum of beliefs that railing against it tells us absolutely nothing about what the complaint is. Rather, a person should focus on particular policies. Since it's the policies that are the problem and all. Who knows? You might even find there are plenty of Christians on your side with regards to your feelings on those policies.
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 1:40 PM on May 5, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 1:40 PM on May 5, 2009 [1 favorite]
I find this conversation very similar to conversations in which (some) white males feel the need to repeatedly point out that they aren't bigots/sexist and don't personally have any special freedoms that minorities/women don't have, and that they are tired of hearing about racism/sexism because just being a white male doesn't mean you're privileged. An argument that doesn't generally go over very well around here.
I get that, and as a liberal atheist with no short list of personally frustrating experiences (as well as neutral and positive experiences) with religion and religious people, I can see the analogue.
What annoys me is the flip side, where it feels like BP kind of wandered in here and made a comment that essentially insisted that we have this conversation right here and right now, that it's not okay not to be specifically talking about how much e.g. Christianity sucks (or by your analogy that's it's not okay not to be talking about white male privilege in a conversation that touches on white or male cultural stuff).
I was enjoying the conversation a lot more before it turned, gratuitously, into yet another argument about the degree and breadth and sharedness of culpability of any given self-identifying Christian for bad things that have happened in the US. We're not exactly hurting for opportunities to discuss that, and it seems like a pointless waste of what was up to that point an interesting discussion of something other than precisely that to drop what was effectively a show-stopping derail into the middle of it.
I like reading a wide variety of conversations around here a lot more than I like reading the same one again and again ad nauseum, so it's frustrating to see this happen, however much I may agree on many of the issues motivating it.
posted by cortex (staff) at 1:41 PM on May 5, 2009 [3 favorites]
I get that, and as a liberal atheist with no short list of personally frustrating experiences (as well as neutral and positive experiences) with religion and religious people, I can see the analogue.
What annoys me is the flip side, where it feels like BP kind of wandered in here and made a comment that essentially insisted that we have this conversation right here and right now, that it's not okay not to be specifically talking about how much e.g. Christianity sucks (or by your analogy that's it's not okay not to be talking about white male privilege in a conversation that touches on white or male cultural stuff).
I was enjoying the conversation a lot more before it turned, gratuitously, into yet another argument about the degree and breadth and sharedness of culpability of any given self-identifying Christian for bad things that have happened in the US. We're not exactly hurting for opportunities to discuss that, and it seems like a pointless waste of what was up to that point an interesting discussion of something other than precisely that to drop what was effectively a show-stopping derail into the middle of it.
I like reading a wide variety of conversations around here a lot more than I like reading the same one again and again ad nauseum, so it's frustrating to see this happen, however much I may agree on many of the issues motivating it.
posted by cortex (staff) at 1:41 PM on May 5, 2009 [3 favorites]
it feels like BP kind of wandered in here
I had commented early in this thread and have been following it since. So the insinuation that I "wandered in here" is ignorant, with all due respect.
Further, the idea that the conversation is privileged by virtue of the comments of a few seems anathema, to me, to the notion of an open conversation. If having your views questioned makes you uncomfortable, perhaps a public forum is not the place for their discussion?
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 1:49 PM on May 5, 2009
I had commented early in this thread and have been following it since. So the insinuation that I "wandered in here" is ignorant, with all due respect.
Further, the idea that the conversation is privileged by virtue of the comments of a few seems anathema, to me, to the notion of an open conversation. If having your views questioned makes you uncomfortable, perhaps a public forum is not the place for their discussion?
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 1:49 PM on May 5, 2009
By that reasoning, by denying any commonalities whatsoever, no individuals could be held responsible for the actions of their faith.
Not at all. I can definitely take responsibility for the actions of "my faith." However, I can't take responsibility for the actions of all the other kinds of Christians out there. Those aren't "my faiths." Do you not see this? "Christianity" is not "my faith." I'm sorry too that you keep wanting to have this conversation that depends on you defining the terms. What I'm saying is that, in conversations with individuals about their individual beliefs, it's useless and insulting to apply what limited amount you know about a related set of beliefs to the individuals with whom you're directly speaking. I can't be responsible for "Christians" or what you think about Christians. I can only be responsible for myself and, to some extent, what happens within my sphere of direct influence in any group in which I'm a member. I'm not a member of "Christians" because that is not a group, it's just a category.
I don't deny that there are large groups of faiths in the taxonomic category "Christians" who espouse views and maintain practices I find personally odious. I just find it very important to note that those people can't facilely be described as "Christians." That doesn't mean much. What constitutes a "Christian" is very much open for debate between and within these groups. What these people are are members of particular denominations with particular views. Let's hold individuals and churches responsible for the views to which you object - not abstract categorical groups who are very likely to contain many people who agree with you entirely on social issues.
Or, what Marisa Stole the Precious Thing said. Christianity as a historical force is one thing, interesting to talk about, definitely with major trends. But Christianity as a source of social policy or personal religious practice is a lot more complicated than that. If you want to talk about policy, talk about policy, with individuals who are responsible for the policies.
posted by Miko at 1:53 PM on May 5, 2009
Not at all. I can definitely take responsibility for the actions of "my faith." However, I can't take responsibility for the actions of all the other kinds of Christians out there. Those aren't "my faiths." Do you not see this? "Christianity" is not "my faith." I'm sorry too that you keep wanting to have this conversation that depends on you defining the terms. What I'm saying is that, in conversations with individuals about their individual beliefs, it's useless and insulting to apply what limited amount you know about a related set of beliefs to the individuals with whom you're directly speaking. I can't be responsible for "Christians" or what you think about Christians. I can only be responsible for myself and, to some extent, what happens within my sphere of direct influence in any group in which I'm a member. I'm not a member of "Christians" because that is not a group, it's just a category.
I don't deny that there are large groups of faiths in the taxonomic category "Christians" who espouse views and maintain practices I find personally odious. I just find it very important to note that those people can't facilely be described as "Christians." That doesn't mean much. What constitutes a "Christian" is very much open for debate between and within these groups. What these people are are members of particular denominations with particular views. Let's hold individuals and churches responsible for the views to which you object - not abstract categorical groups who are very likely to contain many people who agree with you entirely on social issues.
Or, what Marisa Stole the Precious Thing said. Christianity as a historical force is one thing, interesting to talk about, definitely with major trends. But Christianity as a source of social policy or personal religious practice is a lot more complicated than that. If you want to talk about policy, talk about policy, with individuals who are responsible for the policies.
posted by Miko at 1:53 PM on May 5, 2009
I totally get your point, cortex, and have often been frustrated when conversations that I find interesting move into subjects that I'm kind of over. On the other hand, this usually happens organically as people respond to specific statements on hot button topics with counter arguments (as happened here - BP was countering a statement of Miko's, not jumping in with no context whatsoever), and is really kind of the nature of the beast in online conversation. When it happens - and it almost always does - I find it kind of disingenuous to tell people which parts of the conversation they "should" be allowed to respond to. Sometimes, the conversation evolves. Which can be good, too. After all, without evolution, there would be no longboats.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 1:56 PM on May 5, 2009
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 1:56 PM on May 5, 2009
But it doesn't really "evolve" if it just rehashes a fundamental conflict that comes down to a refusal to reconsider a position or take in new information. That's what I meant above as a tiresome game of ping-pong.
posted by Miko at 2:01 PM on May 5, 2009
posted by Miko at 2:01 PM on May 5, 2009
I'm sorry too that you keep wanting to have this conversation that depends on you defining the terms.
I am sorry, as well, that you are also redefining the terms to suit your own position. For the rest of us who have to live with the consequences of not being affiliated with a Christian sect, this obviously makes consensus, if not rational discussion, on related matters a lot more problematic.
While some of us acknowledge there are varied practices and rituals within Christianity as a whole, the simple fact remains that there are enough commonalities between larger and more influential sects, which more or less defines the nature of Christianity for the rest of us who are not Christians.
For example, if you find homophobia odious and you describe yourself as a member of a Christian sect, then you are in the minority of influential Christians, and you and your sect are therefore not representative of the social group as a whole. Do you not see this?
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 2:02 PM on May 5, 2009
I am sorry, as well, that you are also redefining the terms to suit your own position. For the rest of us who have to live with the consequences of not being affiliated with a Christian sect, this obviously makes consensus, if not rational discussion, on related matters a lot more problematic.
While some of us acknowledge there are varied practices and rituals within Christianity as a whole, the simple fact remains that there are enough commonalities between larger and more influential sects, which more or less defines the nature of Christianity for the rest of us who are not Christians.
For example, if you find homophobia odious and you describe yourself as a member of a Christian sect, then you are in the minority of influential Christians, and you and your sect are therefore not representative of the social group as a whole. Do you not see this?
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 2:02 PM on May 5, 2009
I had commented early in this thread and have been following it since. So the insinuation that I "wandered in here" is ignorant, with all due respect.
It was a jarring and fight-starting reintroduction to the thread, nearly a day after your previous comment. I didn't mean to accuse you of not having been reading, so I apologize for the insinuation. My issue is with the comment you chose to make at that ime and the abrupt bombshell effect it had on the conversation.
Further, the idea that the conversation is privileged by virtue of the comments of a few seems anathema, to me, to the notion of an open conversation.
I said I was annoyed, not that you had committed some grave, unforgivable sin and should be banished or whatever. I can both agree with you (do you seriously, at all, think I don't, at this point?) about the value of open conversation and be profoundly annoyed at your conversational choice in this case.
If having your views questioned makes you uncomfortable, perhaps a public forum is not the place for their discussion?
Which views? Which questioning? I thought your choice of conversational payload sucks not because I significantly disagree with you on the issues involved but because I feel like you turned an interesting and relatively novel conversation that wasn't about what you wanted to be talking about into a much less interesting and much more thoroughly gone-over one about what you did want to discuss.
I don't want to have a fight with you about it, and in fact I feel like I'm shooting myself in the foot by even removing my teeth from my tongue and bringing it up, but there's a difference between being allowed and being compelled to steer a conversation in a given direction, and this felt more like the latter to me on your part and like a disappointing derail from how the conversation had been going previously.
posted by cortex (staff) at 2:06 PM on May 5, 2009
It was a jarring and fight-starting reintroduction to the thread, nearly a day after your previous comment. I didn't mean to accuse you of not having been reading, so I apologize for the insinuation. My issue is with the comment you chose to make at that ime and the abrupt bombshell effect it had on the conversation.
Further, the idea that the conversation is privileged by virtue of the comments of a few seems anathema, to me, to the notion of an open conversation.
I said I was annoyed, not that you had committed some grave, unforgivable sin and should be banished or whatever. I can both agree with you (do you seriously, at all, think I don't, at this point?) about the value of open conversation and be profoundly annoyed at your conversational choice in this case.
If having your views questioned makes you uncomfortable, perhaps a public forum is not the place for their discussion?
Which views? Which questioning? I thought your choice of conversational payload sucks not because I significantly disagree with you on the issues involved but because I feel like you turned an interesting and relatively novel conversation that wasn't about what you wanted to be talking about into a much less interesting and much more thoroughly gone-over one about what you did want to discuss.
I don't want to have a fight with you about it, and in fact I feel like I'm shooting myself in the foot by even removing my teeth from my tongue and bringing it up, but there's a difference between being allowed and being compelled to steer a conversation in a given direction, and this felt more like the latter to me on your part and like a disappointing derail from how the conversation had been going previously.
posted by cortex (staff) at 2:06 PM on May 5, 2009
For example, if you find homophobia odious and you describe yourself as a member of a Christian sect, then you are in the minority of influential Christians, and you and your sect are therefore not representative of the social group as a whole. Do you not see this?
It's a little inaccurate to ascribe homophobia to "Christianity" when you yourself acknowledge that there are denominations with different sets of beliefs - the denominations that believe in allowing gay marriage in the church may be in the minority, but that still renders the charge of homophobia against the Christian heading as inaccurate, just as it would be inaccurate to say "Americans" are war criminals. And I think it's already been brought up that Christians can be victims of homophobia as well.
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 2:10 PM on May 5, 2009
It's a little inaccurate to ascribe homophobia to "Christianity" when you yourself acknowledge that there are denominations with different sets of beliefs - the denominations that believe in allowing gay marriage in the church may be in the minority, but that still renders the charge of homophobia against the Christian heading as inaccurate, just as it would be inaccurate to say "Americans" are war criminals. And I think it's already been brought up that Christians can be victims of homophobia as well.
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 2:10 PM on May 5, 2009
I am sorry, as well, that you are also redefining the terms to suit your own position.
What term have I redefined?
there are enough commonalities between larger and more influential sects, which more or less defines the nature of Christianity for the rest of us who are not Christians.
You can speak for everyone who's not Christian?
and you and your sect are therefore not representative of the social group as a whole. Do you not see this?
That's exactly what I'm saying: no Christian is representative of all Christians. If you insist on lumping it all together and ignoring differences, that's your business, but it's flat-out ignorant. The number of Christians who reject homophobia is not small or insignificant. Sometimes I'm not even sure it's a minority. That's the perception, but I'm not sure it's reality when you get down to brass tacks. I heard a survey report this morning that the majority of Americans now support gay marriage. If we're majority Christian in this country, and the majority of Christians are homophobic, how has that come to be the case?
It may very well be true that I don't represent the majority of Christians. That's not a big deal - the point is that there are a lot of Christians who don't represent the majority of Christians. The fact that you don't bother to make distinctions is what makes you biased and what makes your attacks so insulting. You aren't talking about "all Christians," you're choosing a specific set of Christians and applying that label to all Christians, blurring and smothering the other types and delegitmizing their views.
You remind me of the non-Americans on here who berate Americans for the lousy shit our country did over the last decade. No matter how many of us said "the majority of people didn't vote for this PResident, and I've been working my ass off to throw Bush out and get somebody else elected and clean up politics," that didn't matter. In the aggregate, we were Americans, and responsible for all American actions. Do you think that view is justified? Even for those within the group "Americans" who actively rallied and organized against the dominant policy?
But more to the point, where is your problem? Is your problem with homophobia? I agree with you, it sucks. But you seem to be more focused on a problem with Christianity. Is it the effect you don't like? Or the perceived cause? If we focused on results - if we return to the idea of the commons - then we don't have to concern ourselves at all with people's specific religious beliefs and whether you approve of them or not. We just have to pay attention to what we, as a society, do. Lambasting "Christians" is a distraction and a waste of time. It's uninformed and breaks down potential coalitions. If you see negative effects of Christian beliefs in the public sphere, then act against that.
posted by Miko at 2:15 PM on May 5, 2009
What term have I redefined?
there are enough commonalities between larger and more influential sects, which more or less defines the nature of Christianity for the rest of us who are not Christians.
You can speak for everyone who's not Christian?
and you and your sect are therefore not representative of the social group as a whole. Do you not see this?
That's exactly what I'm saying: no Christian is representative of all Christians. If you insist on lumping it all together and ignoring differences, that's your business, but it's flat-out ignorant. The number of Christians who reject homophobia is not small or insignificant. Sometimes I'm not even sure it's a minority. That's the perception, but I'm not sure it's reality when you get down to brass tacks. I heard a survey report this morning that the majority of Americans now support gay marriage. If we're majority Christian in this country, and the majority of Christians are homophobic, how has that come to be the case?
It may very well be true that I don't represent the majority of Christians. That's not a big deal - the point is that there are a lot of Christians who don't represent the majority of Christians. The fact that you don't bother to make distinctions is what makes you biased and what makes your attacks so insulting. You aren't talking about "all Christians," you're choosing a specific set of Christians and applying that label to all Christians, blurring and smothering the other types and delegitmizing their views.
You remind me of the non-Americans on here who berate Americans for the lousy shit our country did over the last decade. No matter how many of us said "the majority of people didn't vote for this PResident, and I've been working my ass off to throw Bush out and get somebody else elected and clean up politics," that didn't matter. In the aggregate, we were Americans, and responsible for all American actions. Do you think that view is justified? Even for those within the group "Americans" who actively rallied and organized against the dominant policy?
But more to the point, where is your problem? Is your problem with homophobia? I agree with you, it sucks. But you seem to be more focused on a problem with Christianity. Is it the effect you don't like? Or the perceived cause? If we focused on results - if we return to the idea of the commons - then we don't have to concern ourselves at all with people's specific religious beliefs and whether you approve of them or not. We just have to pay attention to what we, as a society, do. Lambasting "Christians" is a distraction and a waste of time. It's uninformed and breaks down potential coalitions. If you see negative effects of Christian beliefs in the public sphere, then act against that.
posted by Miko at 2:15 PM on May 5, 2009
the simple fact remains that there are enough commonalities between larger and more influential sects, which more or less defines the nature of Christianity for the rest of us who are not Christians.
This isn't true for me. (FWIW, I am a small-c cultural christian - I grew up in the U.S. celebrating Christmas and Easter and occasionally going to church, but I was not, and am not a believer). In the liberal hotbed that is San Francisco, amongst my mostly queer mostly non-religious group of folk, pretty much no one said stuff about "Christians" and their role in the passage of prop 8. We railed about the Mormon church, and the far-right Christian churches, and no one seemed to have trouble making the distinction between those particular Christians and the kind who were out working with their congregations to defeat prop 8.
posted by rtha at 2:16 PM on May 5, 2009 [3 favorites]
This isn't true for me. (FWIW, I am a small-c cultural christian - I grew up in the U.S. celebrating Christmas and Easter and occasionally going to church, but I was not, and am not a believer). In the liberal hotbed that is San Francisco, amongst my mostly queer mostly non-religious group of folk, pretty much no one said stuff about "Christians" and their role in the passage of prop 8. We railed about the Mormon church, and the far-right Christian churches, and no one seemed to have trouble making the distinction between those particular Christians and the kind who were out working with their congregations to defeat prop 8.
posted by rtha at 2:16 PM on May 5, 2009 [3 favorites]
I feel like you turned an interesting and relatively novel conversation that wasn't about what you wanted to be talking about into a much less interesting and much more thoroughly gone-over one about what you did want to discuss.
I believe I was responding to a line of argument made further above that seems to try to absolve Christianity by virtue of the good done by a few who do not represent the whole. I'm honestly still trying to figure out how my disagreement with this not-so-novel feel-good line meant I somehow took over the discussion, but fair enough.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 2:19 PM on May 5, 2009
I believe I was responding to a line of argument made further above that seems to try to absolve Christianity by virtue of the good done by a few who do not represent the whole. I'm honestly still trying to figure out how my disagreement with this not-so-novel feel-good line meant I somehow took over the discussion, but fair enough.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 2:19 PM on May 5, 2009
Sorry, Miko, but in this conversation I don't see BP as being the only one refusing to reconsider their position. I'd be curious to hear your response to my earlier comparison of this conversation to conversations about sexism. Qualifying your personal or denominational specifics doesn't change the fact that you're part of a majority group telling a minority group how we should feel and talk about the subject. While I understand the desire to distance yourself from the bad behavior and to encourage a more enlightened dialog, I find it a little hard to line up your tone here with that in sexism threads, in which you were a little less interested in letting qualifying statements let the majority off the hook. All men aren't sexist, but that doesn't mean all men aren't part of the privileged set, whether they personally see the benefit or not. Likewise, all Christians are different, but that doesn't mean that Christians in the aggregate aren't responsible for oppression and that even Christians who don't personally benefit aren't still part of the privileged set, whether they personally see the benefit or not.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 2:23 PM on May 5, 2009 [3 favorites]
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 2:23 PM on May 5, 2009 [3 favorites]
responding to a line of argument made further above that seems to try to absolve Christianity by virtue of the good done by a few who do not represent the whole.
I'm not trying to "absolve Christianity" - that's obviously not in my power. It's also bordering on nonsensical; it's a huge historical movement, there's nothing to "absolve." As a movement, it has crimes to its credit, and it has contributions to its credit.
What I am trying to do is complexify the shallow understanding of "Christianity" that takes a monolithic and simplistic view of it and denies the diversity of action and belief within the large umbrella category of Christian.
posted by Miko at 2:24 PM on May 5, 2009
I'm not trying to "absolve Christianity" - that's obviously not in my power. It's also bordering on nonsensical; it's a huge historical movement, there's nothing to "absolve." As a movement, it has crimes to its credit, and it has contributions to its credit.
What I am trying to do is complexify the shallow understanding of "Christianity" that takes a monolithic and simplistic view of it and denies the diversity of action and belief within the large umbrella category of Christian.
posted by Miko at 2:24 PM on May 5, 2009
In the aggregate, we were Americans, and responsible for all American actions. Do you think that view is justified?
To a degree, I do. And I say that as a recently naturalized citizen. A plurality elected a war criminal, so the entire electorate is, to a reasonable point, responsible for the actions of our elected officials. Maybe you didn't vote for Bush, but you have to share in the blame at least a little, because that's how democracy works. Next time, maybe we all work harder on not electing war criminals, and elect someone to arrest the previous guy, etc. That's sometimes the price paid by forming a group to get things done.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 2:25 PM on May 5, 2009
To a degree, I do. And I say that as a recently naturalized citizen. A plurality elected a war criminal, so the entire electorate is, to a reasonable point, responsible for the actions of our elected officials. Maybe you didn't vote for Bush, but you have to share in the blame at least a little, because that's how democracy works. Next time, maybe we all work harder on not electing war criminals, and elect someone to arrest the previous guy, etc. That's sometimes the price paid by forming a group to get things done.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 2:25 PM on May 5, 2009
And yet, the American electorate is involved in project together, a participatory democracy using one system to determine its leadership. Christianity has no such single system or governing body. There is no way for any factions or dissenters to influence any overall outcome in Christianity as there is for voters to influence an election. There is no mechanism for this because there is no group, platform, convention, legal process, conference, or tradition which would facilitate this happening. If you're able to perceive political diversity in American democracy, then surely you can perceive theological diversity in Christianity, which has no shared purpose and participates in no shared system.
posted by Miko at 2:31 PM on May 5, 2009
posted by Miko at 2:31 PM on May 5, 2009
Men have no such single system or governing body. There is no way for any factions or dissenters to influence any overall outcome in social mores as there is for voters to influence an election. There is no mechanism for this because there is no group, platform, convention, legal process, conference, or tradition which would facilitate this happening. And yet, there is patriarchy. Lack of common purpose does not necessarily equate to lack of influence or result in any practical consideration.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 2:41 PM on May 5, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 2:41 PM on May 5, 2009 [1 favorite]
Can't we all just get along?
Will there be pie? I can get along with pie.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 2:44 PM on May 5, 2009 [2 favorites]
Will there be pie? I can get along with pie.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 2:44 PM on May 5, 2009 [2 favorites]
Christianity has no such single system or governing body.
Then I would argue your analogy is poor, because all kinds of systems can hold power to change society for good or bad, with or without a formalized structure. That a system may lack the structural features of a participatory democracy doesn't mitigate its influence over others, nor does it invalidate the moral and ethical responsibilities of the system's participants.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 2:48 PM on May 5, 2009
Then I would argue your analogy is poor, because all kinds of systems can hold power to change society for good or bad, with or without a formalized structure. That a system may lack the structural features of a participatory democracy doesn't mitigate its influence over others, nor does it invalidate the moral and ethical responsibilities of the system's participants.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 2:48 PM on May 5, 2009
And yet, there is patriarchy.
And how does one fight patriarchy? By taking on the specific manifestations of it within communities in which we are members and have power and a voice. For instance, here at MetaFilter, members can discuss whether a given incident is a manifestation of patriarchy and do something to promote what they think the norms of the site should be - because we are sharing a resource and have a platform for doing that.
That a system may lack the structural features of a participatory democracy doesn't mitigate its influence over others, nor does it invalidate the moral and ethical responsibilities of the system's participants.
I certainly do believe we all have moral and ethical responsibilities over ourselves and the communities of which we are voluntary members. We cannot, however, be responsible for "The System" because it is not a community of which we are a member not an entity of which we are an observer, nor does it in itself have discernible actions or views. "Systems," as you are using the word, don't have agency. Systems are products of human actions, not forces arising by themselves. They exist as concretions of countless individual acts.
If I oppose patriarchy as a system, it's an abstract issue. It's nothing more than a single belief -that males should be the dominant class of powerholders. It is not actionable until I see it expressed in a person or instituation. Then I am able to fight it by pointing out and combatting the specific actions that support a patriarchical system, creating outcomes that deny equal power to all classes of people. But until someone or some entity - some concrete, responsible party - does something patriarchal, there is no target for my disagreement with this belief because no one is espousing it.
If one opposes Christianity as a system, what is one opposing? It's a faith tradition containing many varying and changing beliefs - not a single belief, as patriarchy is. Which of the many ideas within it are you opposing? What is there to oppose?
I think you must be opposing actions instead, actions which have outcomes to which you object. How do you fight these specific actions? Isn't the first step to find out what person or institution is perpretrating the action, so that you, as a member or observer of that community, can object to it? And on what basis do you object? Because it's Christian? Or because it's patriarchal, prejudiced, denies human rights, is invasive? Aren't the things you wish to condemn specific beliefs or actions rather than systems here?
posted by Miko at 3:10 PM on May 5, 2009
And how does one fight patriarchy? By taking on the specific manifestations of it within communities in which we are members and have power and a voice. For instance, here at MetaFilter, members can discuss whether a given incident is a manifestation of patriarchy and do something to promote what they think the norms of the site should be - because we are sharing a resource and have a platform for doing that.
That a system may lack the structural features of a participatory democracy doesn't mitigate its influence over others, nor does it invalidate the moral and ethical responsibilities of the system's participants.
I certainly do believe we all have moral and ethical responsibilities over ourselves and the communities of which we are voluntary members. We cannot, however, be responsible for "The System" because it is not a community of which we are a member not an entity of which we are an observer, nor does it in itself have discernible actions or views. "Systems," as you are using the word, don't have agency. Systems are products of human actions, not forces arising by themselves. They exist as concretions of countless individual acts.
If I oppose patriarchy as a system, it's an abstract issue. It's nothing more than a single belief -that males should be the dominant class of powerholders. It is not actionable until I see it expressed in a person or instituation. Then I am able to fight it by pointing out and combatting the specific actions that support a patriarchical system, creating outcomes that deny equal power to all classes of people. But until someone or some entity - some concrete, responsible party - does something patriarchal, there is no target for my disagreement with this belief because no one is espousing it.
If one opposes Christianity as a system, what is one opposing? It's a faith tradition containing many varying and changing beliefs - not a single belief, as patriarchy is. Which of the many ideas within it are you opposing? What is there to oppose?
I think you must be opposing actions instead, actions which have outcomes to which you object. How do you fight these specific actions? Isn't the first step to find out what person or institution is perpretrating the action, so that you, as a member or observer of that community, can object to it? And on what basis do you object? Because it's Christian? Or because it's patriarchal, prejudiced, denies human rights, is invasive? Aren't the things you wish to condemn specific beliefs or actions rather than systems here?
posted by Miko at 3:10 PM on May 5, 2009
I tend to view this as a learning experience. If you take a dog, or a toddler, or an adult human being, then people shock them while wearing a red uniform with a badge on it, they'll become wary of folks in red uniforms with badges. You do not need a shock 100% of the time to generate an associated response. This will even work with a cat, which has a brain the size of a walnut (a lovable walnut, to be sure). Now, the shade of red and the shape of the badge can vary, but the response still happens. A generalization has occurred.
Animals with reasonably-sized brains make associations and generalizations. It's one of the ways experience is processed. To some degree, intelligence has as a key component the process of generalization. Not all cats have four legs, but we have "quadruped" in the definition anyway. Without generalization, every second would be new and unconnected with what has gone before. Cyc is built around it. So are other AI projects. That pattern-finding capability inherent in the brain, if ill-tuned, can lead to the establishment of superstitions, neuroses, bigotry, paranoia, and so forth in humans. In a lesser degree, it can birth simple habits.
I used to eat at White Castles when I was little. Thrice, I was made sick by it. Not just a little sick, but shiveringly ill. Now, I know that White Castles does not automatically equal food poisoning, but I still drive out of my way to avoid being downwind of one. It's hard to say, "That conclusion is invalid" when it is tied so deeply to sensory experiences. I smell that smell, I want to run away, which I do, by changing lanes or finding a new route.
Similarly, a lot of posters have had very bad experiences with Christians. Maybe it isn't "fair" to generalize, but that internal flinch when confronted with a stimulus so often associated with something negative cannot be wished away because it makes someone uncomfortable. Just as the shade of red and the shape of badge may vary, so might the precise brand of Christianity. That does not stop the flinch. When you tell someone that all Christians are not the same, you argue with a human's experience. Guess which so often wins?
Take this as an example. The "fair" thing to do would be to say, "Briggs is against gay marriage." That's a correct statement. It's pared down to the least it could be.
Of course, she takes pains to mention "The Good Book," which means that she's crediting part of her decision to her religion and part to her upbringing. If you were a neural network, or even Google, you'd assign some of the behavior to Briggs and another portion to an associated, specifically mentioned group, because that's right there, in the text. You'd make an association.
This latter is what people do. You can tell them not to, but you're spitting into the wind when you do; people seek patterns. Some people have had enough negative exposure to that vaguely-defined thing "Christianity" that arguing over the third decimal point in the percentages of bad experiences or how the fuzzy borders over it might as well be, "Yes, but that stovetop your burned your hand on spiraled counter-clockwise; this one spins the other way!"
Figure out how to stop that flinch from happening (and ways do exist), you might make headway. All else is hopeless wishes and sophistry.
posted by adipocere at 3:11 PM on May 5, 2009
Animals with reasonably-sized brains make associations and generalizations. It's one of the ways experience is processed. To some degree, intelligence has as a key component the process of generalization. Not all cats have four legs, but we have "quadruped" in the definition anyway. Without generalization, every second would be new and unconnected with what has gone before. Cyc is built around it. So are other AI projects. That pattern-finding capability inherent in the brain, if ill-tuned, can lead to the establishment of superstitions, neuroses, bigotry, paranoia, and so forth in humans. In a lesser degree, it can birth simple habits.
I used to eat at White Castles when I was little. Thrice, I was made sick by it. Not just a little sick, but shiveringly ill. Now, I know that White Castles does not automatically equal food poisoning, but I still drive out of my way to avoid being downwind of one. It's hard to say, "That conclusion is invalid" when it is tied so deeply to sensory experiences. I smell that smell, I want to run away, which I do, by changing lanes or finding a new route.
Similarly, a lot of posters have had very bad experiences with Christians. Maybe it isn't "fair" to generalize, but that internal flinch when confronted with a stimulus so often associated with something negative cannot be wished away because it makes someone uncomfortable. Just as the shade of red and the shape of badge may vary, so might the precise brand of Christianity. That does not stop the flinch. When you tell someone that all Christians are not the same, you argue with a human's experience. Guess which so often wins?
Take this as an example. The "fair" thing to do would be to say, "Briggs is against gay marriage." That's a correct statement. It's pared down to the least it could be.
Of course, she takes pains to mention "The Good Book," which means that she's crediting part of her decision to her religion and part to her upbringing. If you were a neural network, or even Google, you'd assign some of the behavior to Briggs and another portion to an associated, specifically mentioned group, because that's right there, in the text. You'd make an association.
This latter is what people do. You can tell them not to, but you're spitting into the wind when you do; people seek patterns. Some people have had enough negative exposure to that vaguely-defined thing "Christianity" that arguing over the third decimal point in the percentages of bad experiences or how the fuzzy borders over it might as well be, "Yes, but that stovetop your burned your hand on spiraled counter-clockwise; this one spins the other way!"
Figure out how to stop that flinch from happening (and ways do exist), you might make headway. All else is hopeless wishes and sophistry.
posted by adipocere at 3:11 PM on May 5, 2009
Well, I think it worth mentioning - yet again - that there are a number of Christian groups trying actively to create progressive change; with regards to banning the death penalty, protesting involvement in war, taking a firm stand on the use of torture, and yes, gay marriage and abortion rights. Christianity isn't a "system" in the way a body of government is a system. There's no Christian Parliament or something. All we can do is act, to the best of our ability, to help the create the change we want to see in this world in the short time we have here. Evangelicals and progressive Christians alike are trying to do this. This is why leveling the charges against "Christianity" misses the mark - it simultaneously diffuses the impact the criticism would have against those it's intended towards (by being "anti-Christian" as opposed to, for example, "pro-choice"), and ignores or insults the efforts of those who are actually on your side on these issues.
The common ground is issue by issue. I'm Christian but have been in full agreement with you politically, BP, time and time again. We're fighting the same fight here. I want this country out from under the thumb of the Talibaptists with the same passion. That's why I'd like to avoid the blunderbussing approach to criticism and focus on what the issues are.
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 3:15 PM on May 5, 2009 [1 favorite]
The common ground is issue by issue. I'm Christian but have been in full agreement with you politically, BP, time and time again. We're fighting the same fight here. I want this country out from under the thumb of the Talibaptists with the same passion. That's why I'd like to avoid the blunderbussing approach to criticism and focus on what the issues are.
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 3:15 PM on May 5, 2009 [1 favorite]
Figure out how to stop that flinch from happening (and ways do exist), you might make headway
What would those ways be?
posted by Miko at 3:15 PM on May 5, 2009
What would those ways be?
posted by Miko at 3:15 PM on May 5, 2009
In the US you can assume someone is Christian unless they say otherwise, so it sometimes seems odd when they keep saying it.
To add to Miko's observation, I also grew up in a diverse community-- a suburb of Houston, where there were as many Hindus, Muslims, and practitioners of Southeast and East Asian religions there were flavors of Christians. It wasn't until I moved to Philadelphia that I realized most people around me are probably Christians. That probably rattles the worldview of people with an anti-Texas bent.
Lately, I've been reading Stormfront in order to understand White Nationalism. Interestingly, religion is the most heated topic over there. Who would have thought Metafilter has something in common with Stormfront? They finally shut their "Theology" board down because fights among Christians, Creators, Atheists, and Pagans got out of hand.
I mention this for a couple of reasons. One, it's an interesting comparison. But more than that, I believe that it is vital that we keep our minds open so that we can learn from what we despise. The views on Stormfront are repugnant, but they are remarkably varied. Without having taken the time to read the board, I would never have known about what divides White Nationalists. That's something important to know. It also contains a lesson for those who would dismiss Christianity wholesale without understanding its complexity.
posted by vincele at 3:17 PM on May 5, 2009
To add to Miko's observation, I also grew up in a diverse community-- a suburb of Houston, where there were as many Hindus, Muslims, and practitioners of Southeast and East Asian religions there were flavors of Christians. It wasn't until I moved to Philadelphia that I realized most people around me are probably Christians. That probably rattles the worldview of people with an anti-Texas bent.
Lately, I've been reading Stormfront in order to understand White Nationalism. Interestingly, religion is the most heated topic over there. Who would have thought Metafilter has something in common with Stormfront? They finally shut their "Theology" board down because fights among Christians, Creators, Atheists, and Pagans got out of hand.
I mention this for a couple of reasons. One, it's an interesting comparison. But more than that, I believe that it is vital that we keep our minds open so that we can learn from what we despise. The views on Stormfront are repugnant, but they are remarkably varied. Without having taken the time to read the board, I would never have known about what divides White Nationalists. That's something important to know. It also contains a lesson for those who would dismiss Christianity wholesale without understanding its complexity.
posted by vincele at 3:17 PM on May 5, 2009
Liek MStPT, I also agree with BP on political issues. I speak up specifically because I would like to be able to remove barriers to coalition-building that polarize people on religious lines, as taking a broad-swath "anti-Christian" approach does. We'd make much more progress on social justice issues if there were more focus on common cause and less generalized assumption.
posted by Miko at 3:21 PM on May 5, 2009
posted by Miko at 3:21 PM on May 5, 2009
We cannot, however, be responsible for "The System" because it is not a community of which we are a member not an entity of which we are an observer, nor does it in itself have discernible actions or views
Sure we can. Structured or not, societal systems accrete around individuals getting together out of the desire to share a common set of beliefs and behaviors. If you want to hold individuals responsible for behaviors, that's fine, but there's nothing holding us up from scrutinizing the system in the first place, if its individuals are, as a whole, behaving unethically towards others, by virtue of their shared beliefs.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 3:33 PM on May 5, 2009
Sure we can. Structured or not, societal systems accrete around individuals getting together out of the desire to share a common set of beliefs and behaviors. If you want to hold individuals responsible for behaviors, that's fine, but there's nothing holding us up from scrutinizing the system in the first place, if its individuals are, as a whole, behaving unethically towards others, by virtue of their shared beliefs.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 3:33 PM on May 5, 2009
For context, although I am personally atheist, I come from a very religious family and upbringing. A Christian religious family. That said, my family is as lefty liberal as anyone here, and are very active in trying to undo exactly the kinds of injustices that BP has assigned to "Christians" in the general sense. In fact, almost all of the Christians that I know personally are very political and very progressive. Part of the solution, not part of the problem. I personally have no issues with religion in the general sense, other than at a logical level that is irrelevant here. So when it comes to the argument that not all Christians are part of the problem, you are literally preaching to the choir (yes, I used to be in the choir - what of it?).
So why am I here defending, to some extent, BP, whose generalities don't apply to those I know and love?
Because I see members of an overwhelming majority trying to control the language and permissible direction of discourse around one particular power imbalance in exactly the way they have previously labeled as patronizing when on the other side of the power imbalance. I didn't bring up sexism to argue that it can be solved by anything other than specific action against specific actions and attitudes. I brought it up because when a man in a sexism thread tries to tell women how they should qualify all their statements because not all men are sexist or have the power to change sexism, or when a white in a racism thread similarly tries to control the permissible discourse... I will charitably label the response as inconsistent with the one here, where the shoe is on the other foot.
So it rankles to hear Christians tell the overwhelming minority exactly how we should talk about the power imbalance, and how we should qualify all of our statements so as not to offend the Good Christians, and to presume that we are not aware that not all Christians are the same, even though, for all practical purposes, there are plenty enough like-minded Christians to impose their will. You may find some of our rhetoric polarizing, but rest assured - we are not the ones who created the divide, nor are we the ones who can or are responsible for bridging it. Like it or not, you are part of the majority on this one. With all due respect - and you know that I sincerely respect you, that's not a passive-aggressive swipe - please stop telling us how to talk about it.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 4:11 PM on May 5, 2009 [4 favorites]
So why am I here defending, to some extent, BP, whose generalities don't apply to those I know and love?
Because I see members of an overwhelming majority trying to control the language and permissible direction of discourse around one particular power imbalance in exactly the way they have previously labeled as patronizing when on the other side of the power imbalance. I didn't bring up sexism to argue that it can be solved by anything other than specific action against specific actions and attitudes. I brought it up because when a man in a sexism thread tries to tell women how they should qualify all their statements because not all men are sexist or have the power to change sexism, or when a white in a racism thread similarly tries to control the permissible discourse... I will charitably label the response as inconsistent with the one here, where the shoe is on the other foot.
So it rankles to hear Christians tell the overwhelming minority exactly how we should talk about the power imbalance, and how we should qualify all of our statements so as not to offend the Good Christians, and to presume that we are not aware that not all Christians are the same, even though, for all practical purposes, there are plenty enough like-minded Christians to impose their will. You may find some of our rhetoric polarizing, but rest assured - we are not the ones who created the divide, nor are we the ones who can or are responsible for bridging it. Like it or not, you are part of the majority on this one. With all due respect - and you know that I sincerely respect you, that's not a passive-aggressive swipe - please stop telling us how to talk about it.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 4:11 PM on May 5, 2009 [4 favorites]
I see your point but I feel like BP's contribution was the equivalent of coming into a sexism thread with "All men are rapists!" Even card carrying members of the patriarchy can tell that person that this is offensive and unhelpful, no matter what that person's personal history with men has been.
posted by small_ruminant at 4:27 PM on May 5, 2009
posted by small_ruminant at 4:27 PM on May 5, 2009
I feel like BP's contribution was the equivalent of coming into a sexism thread with "All men are rapists!"
That's not equivalent at all, though. He responded to the comment that "Christianity is.... not monolithic," with the argument that it's monolithic enough to very effectively oppress. So I would say it's more like the equivalent of coming into a sexism thread and objecting when somebody denies that there even is a patriarchy.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 4:33 PM on May 5, 2009
That's not equivalent at all, though. He responded to the comment that "Christianity is.... not monolithic," with the argument that it's monolithic enough to very effectively oppress. So I would say it's more like the equivalent of coming into a sexism thread and objecting when somebody denies that there even is a patriarchy.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 4:33 PM on May 5, 2009
I see your point but I feel like BP's contribution was the equivalent of coming into a sexism thread with "All men are rapists!"
I'm sorry, but that is a ridiculous comment.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 4:37 PM on May 5, 2009
I'm sorry, but that is a ridiculous comment.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 4:37 PM on May 5, 2009
So it rankles to hear Christians tell the overwhelming minority exactly how we should talk about the power imbalance, and how we should qualify all of our statements so as not to offend the Good Christians, and to presume that we are not aware that not all Christians are the same, even though, for all practical purposes, there are plenty enough like-minded Christians to impose their will. You may find some of our rhetoric polarizing, but rest assured - we are not the ones who created the divide, nor are we the ones who can or are responsible for bridging it. Like it or not, you are part of the majority on this one. With all due respect - and you know that I sincerely respect you, that's not a passive-aggressive swipe - please stop telling us how to talk about it.
I'm sure there are plenty of comparable examples that could be brought up with regards to sexism and racism, but I also notice in those discussions that people do make an effort to talk about "a lot of men" or "these particular white people".
But speaking for myself, I'm not talking about being courteous; I'm ttalking about accuracy here. You're more than welcome to rail against "Christianity", and rest assured, the Talibaptists love that. It convinces them that our fight has nothing to do with issues and everything to do with Christians v. Atheist Commies. And apparently that kind of mentality spills over into other schools of thought, too, as the efforts of progressive Christians are dismissed because here we have this socially primitive majority. It's not just about being "offended"; it's about applying your criticism where it belongs, and recognizing there are people standing with you who are pretty much being left out of the equation altogether.
If you want to go up against actual policies and issues, fantastic. I don't think it's too much to ask that the focus of criticism be placed at the feet of those who actually support the policies you oppose.
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 4:39 PM on May 5, 2009 [1 favorite]
I'm sure there are plenty of comparable examples that could be brought up with regards to sexism and racism, but I also notice in those discussions that people do make an effort to talk about "a lot of men" or "these particular white people".
But speaking for myself, I'm not talking about being courteous; I'm ttalking about accuracy here. You're more than welcome to rail against "Christianity", and rest assured, the Talibaptists love that. It convinces them that our fight has nothing to do with issues and everything to do with Christians v. Atheist Commies. And apparently that kind of mentality spills over into other schools of thought, too, as the efforts of progressive Christians are dismissed because here we have this socially primitive majority. It's not just about being "offended"; it's about applying your criticism where it belongs, and recognizing there are people standing with you who are pretty much being left out of the equation altogether.
If you want to go up against actual policies and issues, fantastic. I don't think it's too much to ask that the focus of criticism be placed at the feet of those who actually support the policies you oppose.
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 4:39 PM on May 5, 2009 [1 favorite]
Regardless of whether it was philosophically equivalent, it had a comparable effect, turning an interesting discussion into yet another "Christians suck amirite" back-and-forth.
So it rankles to hear Christians tell the overwhelming minority exactly how we should talk about the power imbalance
I am not a Christian and yet it rankles to see Christians lumped together and tarred with the same brush, because no man is an island, entire of itself, and bigotry is bigotry whether it's directed at your favorite whipping boy or not.
posted by languagehat at 4:40 PM on May 5, 2009
So it rankles to hear Christians tell the overwhelming minority exactly how we should talk about the power imbalance
I am not a Christian and yet it rankles to see Christians lumped together and tarred with the same brush, because no man is an island, entire of itself, and bigotry is bigotry whether it's directed at your favorite whipping boy or not.
posted by languagehat at 4:40 PM on May 5, 2009
If you want to hold individuals responsible for behaviors, that's fine, but there's nothing holding us up from scrutinizing the system in the first place, if its individuals are, as a whole, behaving unethically towards others, by virtue of their shared beliefs.
To that extent I totally agree with you, and I try to do that all the time.
I brought it up because when a man in a sexism thread tries to tell women how they should qualify all their statements because not all men are sexist or have the power to change sexism, or when a white in a racism thread similarly tries to control the permissible discourse... I will charitably label the response as inconsistent with the one here, where the shoe is on the other foot.
I don't think that's even widely true. I think in most of the sexism here, people take great pains to argue issues and ideas rather than making generalizations about how "men" and "women" are. To some extent we don't always meet the mark, but as s_r said, when the statement is "ALL Christians support an evil system" the equivalent is really stating very clearly, "ALL whites are racist" or "ALL men are rapists." It's clearly untrue and it's obviously polarizing. I really, really appreciate the men who stick their heads up and say "I am male and I also disagree with patriarchy" or the white people who say "I am white and I also oppose racism." Those points of view are more than welcome and very helpful in making progress toward resolution of those social problems. That's the kind of atmosphere I'd love to arrive at when this issue comes up.
Recognizing that whites benefit from a white privilege system, men benefit from a patriarchal system, and Christians benefit from blending in easily in a nation where the majority of believers follow a Christian faith are certainly reasonable points and supported by evidence. It doesn't follow, though, that the people in those classes ALL support and are fine with those privileges. They can certainly oppose and work to destroy them even though they are beneficiaries - perhaps they should even work harder at it, since they are unequally benefitting. As a few have been pointing out, many Christians reject the idea of Christianity in government and oppose social policy that curtails human rights for religious reasons. So, in your analogy, they are like feminist or humanist/egalitarian men, or anti-racist whites. They oppose the social problems that result in unfairness. I think it's fair to ask people to recognize that we tend to be wrong when we assume an entire class of people are all the same. Of course you don't like it when people say "Men are all the same," so people take pains not to do that. I'm recommending extending similar considerations to believers and nonbelievers of all kinds. Let's try judging people on their degree of goodwill and on their individual actions.
posted by Miko at 4:43 PM on May 5, 2009
To that extent I totally agree with you, and I try to do that all the time.
I brought it up because when a man in a sexism thread tries to tell women how they should qualify all their statements because not all men are sexist or have the power to change sexism, or when a white in a racism thread similarly tries to control the permissible discourse... I will charitably label the response as inconsistent with the one here, where the shoe is on the other foot.
I don't think that's even widely true. I think in most of the sexism here, people take great pains to argue issues and ideas rather than making generalizations about how "men" and "women" are. To some extent we don't always meet the mark, but as s_r said, when the statement is "ALL Christians support an evil system" the equivalent is really stating very clearly, "ALL whites are racist" or "ALL men are rapists." It's clearly untrue and it's obviously polarizing. I really, really appreciate the men who stick their heads up and say "I am male and I also disagree with patriarchy" or the white people who say "I am white and I also oppose racism." Those points of view are more than welcome and very helpful in making progress toward resolution of those social problems. That's the kind of atmosphere I'd love to arrive at when this issue comes up.
Recognizing that whites benefit from a white privilege system, men benefit from a patriarchal system, and Christians benefit from blending in easily in a nation where the majority of believers follow a Christian faith are certainly reasonable points and supported by evidence. It doesn't follow, though, that the people in those classes ALL support and are fine with those privileges. They can certainly oppose and work to destroy them even though they are beneficiaries - perhaps they should even work harder at it, since they are unequally benefitting. As a few have been pointing out, many Christians reject the idea of Christianity in government and oppose social policy that curtails human rights for religious reasons. So, in your analogy, they are like feminist or humanist/egalitarian men, or anti-racist whites. They oppose the social problems that result in unfairness. I think it's fair to ask people to recognize that we tend to be wrong when we assume an entire class of people are all the same. Of course you don't like it when people say "Men are all the same," so people take pains not to do that. I'm recommending extending similar considerations to believers and nonbelievers of all kinds. Let's try judging people on their degree of goodwill and on their individual actions.
posted by Miko at 4:43 PM on May 5, 2009
You may find some of our rhetoric polarizing, but rest assured - we are not the ones who created the divide, nor are we the ones who can or are responsible for bridging it. Like it or not, you are part of the majority on this one. With all due respect - and you know that I sincerely respect you, that's not a passive-aggressive swipe - please stop telling us how to talk about it.
I believe you're missing what Miko is saying above. Your automatic decision to lump all as a whole, instead of noting the differences and dissimilarities, excludes those who can quite sensibly be the best allies in the discussion. Essentially, it feels as if you're drawing a line in the sand and declaring that X people cannot join the discussion from your side of the line.
In this situation, for example, if I'm going to be automatically lumped into a group of Christians who I feel by no means represent what I believe, then I lose an incentive to even be part of the conversation. Similarly, why should liberal or moderate Muslims enter into conversations when they're automatically held responsible for the actions of the radical fundamentalists who are blowing up cars in market places?
From my perspective, this is how I'm interpreting what you're arguing. Rather than take the opportunity to engage individuals of a certain group, who are at least open minded enough not to make automatic assumptions and stereotypes, it appears counter productive to deny them respect of addressing them from how they view themselves within that group. It seems more of an anger issue, wanting to hold someone responsible for that thing which has upset you, than caring if they are even responsible or might even be extremely sympathetic to your cause in the first place.
I'd like to think that people like Miko, who has been a strong proponent of her position within the vast umbrella of Christianity, is accepting the challenge of "taking on the system" by simply being who she is, saying what she has been saying, and making an effort to show that not all Christians are the same. Short of founding a Christian political party, intent on applying her faith's beliefs on a national, political level, I'm at a loss to how she could meet these strident demands of assuming responsibility for people who view and interact with the world in entirely different ways than herself.
posted by Atreides at 4:53 PM on May 5, 2009 [3 favorites]
I believe you're missing what Miko is saying above. Your automatic decision to lump all as a whole, instead of noting the differences and dissimilarities, excludes those who can quite sensibly be the best allies in the discussion. Essentially, it feels as if you're drawing a line in the sand and declaring that X people cannot join the discussion from your side of the line.
In this situation, for example, if I'm going to be automatically lumped into a group of Christians who I feel by no means represent what I believe, then I lose an incentive to even be part of the conversation. Similarly, why should liberal or moderate Muslims enter into conversations when they're automatically held responsible for the actions of the radical fundamentalists who are blowing up cars in market places?
From my perspective, this is how I'm interpreting what you're arguing. Rather than take the opportunity to engage individuals of a certain group, who are at least open minded enough not to make automatic assumptions and stereotypes, it appears counter productive to deny them respect of addressing them from how they view themselves within that group. It seems more of an anger issue, wanting to hold someone responsible for that thing which has upset you, than caring if they are even responsible or might even be extremely sympathetic to your cause in the first place.
I'd like to think that people like Miko, who has been a strong proponent of her position within the vast umbrella of Christianity, is accepting the challenge of "taking on the system" by simply being who she is, saying what she has been saying, and making an effort to show that not all Christians are the same. Short of founding a Christian political party, intent on applying her faith's beliefs on a national, political level, I'm at a loss to how she could meet these strident demands of assuming responsibility for people who view and interact with the world in entirely different ways than herself.
posted by Atreides at 4:53 PM on May 5, 2009 [3 favorites]
It sounds like where you see a problem with (monolithic) Christianity, I see a problem of culture. Having grown up in a Christian religious, very lefty, very social justice oriented family, it has never occurred to me to look at the religious right as representing Christian. It's frustrating to me that people are accepting this self-label uncritically.
Usually Metafilter is quick to point out that labeling something is cause to be suspicious. When I hear "Operation Enduring Freedom" (to grab an example out of thin air) I'm pretty sure freedom isn't its goal. When I hear that some stance or another is "Christian" I'm pretty sure it isn't. It's frustrating to me that in the case of Christianity you're willing to not only accept these people's labels at face value but use them to judge anyone else who's on the same, very broad and poorly defined branch. Miko spoke to this better than I can.
As for Christianity being "monolithic enough," I disagree categorically. I understand that there are many many obnoxious Christians in the world. Even worse, there are people using Christianity as a fig leaf for a thousand atrocities. I am convinced that these atrocities would happen anyway. They've happened under multiple organized religions. They happened in the name of Communism, in the name of Society. They happen in the name of science and reason. They happen because humans are humans.
When Sinclair Lewis said that "When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross" it wasn't because fascism is intrinsic to Christianity. It was because it, like patriotism, is so broad and undefined that it can be used to disguise any power play you choose. But you're right that the other reason it's so useful is because the vast majority of Americans identify as "Christian." What that means is different to every one of them. I view myself as a patriot. I feel certain my patriotism looks a lot different than Rush Limbaugh's.
There is no useful definition of a patriot. There is no monolithic patriotism. There is no useful definition of a Christian. There is no monolithic Christianity.
On this point I think we will have to agree to disagree.
posted by small_ruminant at 5:11 PM on May 5, 2009 [2 favorites]
Usually Metafilter is quick to point out that labeling something is cause to be suspicious. When I hear "Operation Enduring Freedom" (to grab an example out of thin air) I'm pretty sure freedom isn't its goal. When I hear that some stance or another is "Christian" I'm pretty sure it isn't. It's frustrating to me that in the case of Christianity you're willing to not only accept these people's labels at face value but use them to judge anyone else who's on the same, very broad and poorly defined branch. Miko spoke to this better than I can.
As for Christianity being "monolithic enough," I disagree categorically. I understand that there are many many obnoxious Christians in the world. Even worse, there are people using Christianity as a fig leaf for a thousand atrocities. I am convinced that these atrocities would happen anyway. They've happened under multiple organized religions. They happened in the name of Communism, in the name of Society. They happen in the name of science and reason. They happen because humans are humans.
When Sinclair Lewis said that "When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross" it wasn't because fascism is intrinsic to Christianity. It was because it, like patriotism, is so broad and undefined that it can be used to disguise any power play you choose. But you're right that the other reason it's so useful is because the vast majority of Americans identify as "Christian." What that means is different to every one of them. I view myself as a patriot. I feel certain my patriotism looks a lot different than Rush Limbaugh's.
There is no useful definition of a patriot. There is no monolithic patriotism. There is no useful definition of a Christian. There is no monolithic Christianity.
On this point I think we will have to agree to disagree.
posted by small_ruminant at 5:11 PM on May 5, 2009 [2 favorites]
Of course you don't like it when people say "Men are all the same," so people take pains not to do that. I'm recommending extending similar considerations to believers and nonbelievers of all kinds. Let's try judging people on their degree of goodwill and on their individual actions.
Miko - You are arguing with a straw man of your own construction. No one here said all Christians are the same. No one. You said "Christianity is.... not monolithic." BP said "It's monolithic enough. Enough so to have seriously detrimental effects on the human condition." I agree with that statement 100%. I would go so far as to call it a fact. Yet the use of the term "Christianity" with no qualifiers was actually yours. Pretending that BP's rebuttal tars all Christians unless accompanied by an elaborate list of exactly and only those factions included is pretty ridiculous.
I also notice in those discussions that people do make an effort to talk about "a lot of men" or "these particular white people".
Sure they do. People also complain about the presumption of those who inevitably pop up to object whenever the elaborate qualifying statements aren't included. Yes, we get it, they say. You're not all alike. Don't make us spell it out every comment. You aren't the victims, if victims there be.
I am not a Christian and yet it rankles to see Christians lumped together and tarred with the same brush, because no man is an island, entire of itself, and bigotry is bigotry whether it's directed at your favorite whipping boy or not.
The only lumping together I've done here is to lump together the self-identified Christians in this thread who insist on non-Christians qualifying every fucking statement in a way they wouldn't tolerate in threads on other subjects.
In fact, no one here has actually argued that all Christians are the same. No one. Not BP, and certainly not me. Nobody has been tarred. Sorry we didn't say the magic words: "some Christians but certainly not you or anyone you know or care about, we just mean the bad ones, which we will now name specifically so as not to hurt anyone's feelings... "
Give me a break. The only bigotry going on here is a bigotry straw man that no one here is even defending.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 5:22 PM on May 5, 2009 [1 favorite]
Miko - You are arguing with a straw man of your own construction. No one here said all Christians are the same. No one. You said "Christianity is.... not monolithic." BP said "It's monolithic enough. Enough so to have seriously detrimental effects on the human condition." I agree with that statement 100%. I would go so far as to call it a fact. Yet the use of the term "Christianity" with no qualifiers was actually yours. Pretending that BP's rebuttal tars all Christians unless accompanied by an elaborate list of exactly and only those factions included is pretty ridiculous.
I also notice in those discussions that people do make an effort to talk about "a lot of men" or "these particular white people".
Sure they do. People also complain about the presumption of those who inevitably pop up to object whenever the elaborate qualifying statements aren't included. Yes, we get it, they say. You're not all alike. Don't make us spell it out every comment. You aren't the victims, if victims there be.
I am not a Christian and yet it rankles to see Christians lumped together and tarred with the same brush, because no man is an island, entire of itself, and bigotry is bigotry whether it's directed at your favorite whipping boy or not.
The only lumping together I've done here is to lump together the self-identified Christians in this thread who insist on non-Christians qualifying every fucking statement in a way they wouldn't tolerate in threads on other subjects.
In fact, no one here has actually argued that all Christians are the same. No one. Not BP, and certainly not me. Nobody has been tarred. Sorry we didn't say the magic words: "some Christians but certainly not you or anyone you know or care about, we just mean the bad ones, which we will now name specifically so as not to hurt anyone's feelings... "
Give me a break. The only bigotry going on here is a bigotry straw man that no one here is even defending.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 5:22 PM on May 5, 2009 [1 favorite]
In this situation, for example, if I'm going to be automatically lumped into a group of Christians who I feel by no means represent what I believe, then I lose an incentive to even be part of the conversation.
You know what? Historically, the rest of us who are not of Judeo-Christian faiths haven't really been allowed much of a place at the table, and this continues today. If you "leave the discussion", it won't be because some of us dared to question the influence your religion has on our -- everyone's -- society, it will be because you had the privilege of sitting at the table in the first place, and the privilege of leaving. One might argue that you and others have the responsibility to stay and fix things, but that's up to you.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 5:25 PM on May 5, 2009
You know what? Historically, the rest of us who are not of Judeo-Christian faiths haven't really been allowed much of a place at the table, and this continues today. If you "leave the discussion", it won't be because some of us dared to question the influence your religion has on our -- everyone's -- society, it will be because you had the privilege of sitting at the table in the first place, and the privilege of leaving. One might argue that you and others have the responsibility to stay and fix things, but that's up to you.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 5:25 PM on May 5, 2009
it won't be because some of us dared to question the influence your religion
There it is again. Your religion. Which religion? There is no "Christianity," just as there is no "all men," or "all whites."
And yes, I think that qualifying every fucking statement is the way to keep arguments from polarizing in threads about similarly contentious topics.
posted by small_ruminant at 5:43 PM on May 5, 2009
There it is again. Your religion. Which religion? There is no "Christianity," just as there is no "all men," or "all whites."
And yes, I think that qualifying every fucking statement is the way to keep arguments from polarizing in threads about similarly contentious topics.
posted by small_ruminant at 5:43 PM on May 5, 2009
You know what? Historically, the rest of us who are not of Judeo-Christian faiths haven't really been allowed much of a place at the table, and this continues today. If you "leave the discussion", it won't be because some of us dared to question the influence your religion has on our -- everyone's -- society, it will be because you had the privilege of sitting at the table in the first place, and the privilege of leaving. One might argue that you and others have the responsibility to stay and fix things, but that's up to you.
The fact you point to the influence of Christianity on modern America rejects your argument that it's monolithic. The argument that Christianity has influenced America has most recently been based on the fact that the Republican Party assumed a platform that trumpeted Christian values and acted as a representative of America's "Christian" population. As Miko pointed out above, the rejection of the Republican party and it's heralded Christian supporters, by a majority of Americans, in a nation that is majority Christian, dictates that Christians are not a monolithic block. Quite obviously, there were Christians who consciously chose to reject the brand of Christianity that the GOP was advertising. These Christians, you might say, were very well trying to "fix" things.
posted by Atreides at 5:43 PM on May 5, 2009
The fact you point to the influence of Christianity on modern America rejects your argument that it's monolithic. The argument that Christianity has influenced America has most recently been based on the fact that the Republican Party assumed a platform that trumpeted Christian values and acted as a representative of America's "Christian" population. As Miko pointed out above, the rejection of the Republican party and it's heralded Christian supporters, by a majority of Americans, in a nation that is majority Christian, dictates that Christians are not a monolithic block. Quite obviously, there were Christians who consciously chose to reject the brand of Christianity that the GOP was advertising. These Christians, you might say, were very well trying to "fix" things.
posted by Atreides at 5:43 PM on May 5, 2009
There is no useful definition of a Christian. There is no monolithic Christianity.
Sounds good, but it negates itself. If there is no useful definition of something, then you can not also tell me what it isn't.
More to the point, it doesn't even make sense emotionally. To wit:
There is no useful definition of a man. There is no patriarchy.
There is no useful definition of race. There is no racism.
There is no monolithic Christianity in the same way that there is no monolithic "white" race and no monolithic male agenda. Yet all of these categories are monolithic enough to systematically oppress those outside of the set. So maybe "monolithic" isn't the most useful term. How about aggregate. Christians are all different. But enough Christians believe similarly to form an effective oppressive majority in the aggregate. So we're using different geological terms to describe exactly the same effect on the minority.
In this situation, for example, if I'm going to be automatically lumped into a group of Christians who I feel by no means represent what I believe, then I lose an incentive to even be part of the conversation. Similarly, why should liberal or moderate Muslims enter into conversations when they're automatically held responsible for the actions of the radical fundamentalists who are blowing up cars in market places?
From my perspective, this is how I'm interpreting what you're arguing.
Nobody has automatically lumped you into anything. Your perspective on my argument is exactly wrong. If you go back and read me here you might note that I am actually very sympathetic to your view. My only objection here is in being scolded for not going far enough out of our way to spare the tender, tender feelings of the members of the majority who were actually the first ones to throw around the term "Christianity" without qualification.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 5:53 PM on May 5, 2009 [1 favorite]
Sounds good, but it negates itself. If there is no useful definition of something, then you can not also tell me what it isn't.
More to the point, it doesn't even make sense emotionally. To wit:
There is no useful definition of a man. There is no patriarchy.
There is no useful definition of race. There is no racism.
There is no monolithic Christianity in the same way that there is no monolithic "white" race and no monolithic male agenda. Yet all of these categories are monolithic enough to systematically oppress those outside of the set. So maybe "monolithic" isn't the most useful term. How about aggregate. Christians are all different. But enough Christians believe similarly to form an effective oppressive majority in the aggregate. So we're using different geological terms to describe exactly the same effect on the minority.
In this situation, for example, if I'm going to be automatically lumped into a group of Christians who I feel by no means represent what I believe, then I lose an incentive to even be part of the conversation. Similarly, why should liberal or moderate Muslims enter into conversations when they're automatically held responsible for the actions of the radical fundamentalists who are blowing up cars in market places?
From my perspective, this is how I'm interpreting what you're arguing.
Nobody has automatically lumped you into anything. Your perspective on my argument is exactly wrong. If you go back and read me here you might note that I am actually very sympathetic to your view. My only objection here is in being scolded for not going far enough out of our way to spare the tender, tender feelings of the members of the majority who were actually the first ones to throw around the term "Christianity" without qualification.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 5:53 PM on May 5, 2009 [1 favorite]
"tender, tender feelings"
Bah! That was unecessarily rude of me.
Sorry.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 5:55 PM on May 5, 2009 [1 favorite]
Bah! That was unecessarily rude of me.
Sorry.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 5:55 PM on May 5, 2009 [1 favorite]
Nobody has automatically lumped you into anything.
On lack of preview, that may not still be entirely acurate.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 5:57 PM on May 5, 2009
On lack of preview, that may not still be entirely acurate.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 5:57 PM on May 5, 2009
In fact, no one here has actually argued that all Christians are the same. No one. Not BP, and certainly not me. Nobody has been tarred.
If it can be said that "Christianity" is a certain way because of the behaviors of the perceived majority, this does tar all Christians with the same brush, though.
I don't think it's somehow walking on eggshells to talk about separate policies as opposed to just saying all these people are "similar enough". It's not accurate. I wouldn't think you'd prefer sweeping generalities to facts in any other area of discussion. Why should this be any different?
People also complain about the presumption of those who inevitably pop up to object whenever the elaborate qualifying statements aren't included. Yes, we get it, they say. You're not all alike. Don't make us spell it out every comment.
Whether or not that's so, this sounds a lot like two wrongs making a right, and doesn't really make generalities more exact.
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 6:03 PM on May 5, 2009
If it can be said that "Christianity" is a certain way because of the behaviors of the perceived majority, this does tar all Christians with the same brush, though.
I don't think it's somehow walking on eggshells to talk about separate policies as opposed to just saying all these people are "similar enough". It's not accurate. I wouldn't think you'd prefer sweeping generalities to facts in any other area of discussion. Why should this be any different?
People also complain about the presumption of those who inevitably pop up to object whenever the elaborate qualifying statements aren't included. Yes, we get it, they say. You're not all alike. Don't make us spell it out every comment.
Whether or not that's so, this sounds a lot like two wrongs making a right, and doesn't really make generalities more exact.
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 6:03 PM on May 5, 2009
If it can be said that "Christianity" is a certain way because of the behaviors of the perceived majority, this does tar all Christians with the same brush, though.
Not that I consider that an accurate description of what I have said here, but I will happily amend that to "Christianity" can wield a certain power dependant on the choices of the majority. Minority choices get their own brushes.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 6:18 PM on May 5, 2009
Not that I consider that an accurate description of what I have said here, but I will happily amend that to "Christianity" can wield a certain power dependant on the choices of the majority. Minority choices get their own brushes.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 6:18 PM on May 5, 2009
Now I have to go pick up dinner. Sorry for getting prickly. I love my Christian friends. You are not the enemy. But you know that already, and many of you know that I know that, too. So having to preface every discussion of Christianity with special shoutouts to all the non-asshole Christians gets tiring, and seemed to me like not the way people behave in other conversations. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe I'm just ornery, today. It's quite possible. Sorry. And when I don't respond to any follow-up conversation, please don't think I'm ignoring you. I'm having surgery tomorrow to blow up a kidney stone. I'll check in in a couple of days to see who all I owe apologies to. G'night.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 6:25 PM on May 5, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 6:25 PM on May 5, 2009 [1 favorite]
Don't worry, It's Raining, you've gone overboard to state there's no intentional malice in what you're say, or why you're saying it. Have a good night's rest, a safe surgery, and a swift recovery.
posted by Atreides at 6:27 PM on May 5, 2009
posted by Atreides at 6:27 PM on May 5, 2009
No harm, no foul. I hope you recover quickly.
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 6:36 PM on May 5, 2009
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 6:36 PM on May 5, 2009
Good luck with it and get well soon.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 7:38 PM on May 5, 2009
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 7:38 PM on May 5, 2009
Nuke it from orbit, Flo! Or whatever's surgically appropriate, I guess.
For what it's worth, you got me thinking about this.
posted by rtha at 8:03 PM on May 5, 2009
For what it's worth, you got me thinking about this.
posted by rtha at 8:03 PM on May 5, 2009
Hey and then today we get this verbiage in a new askme: "I don't do the whole God/creationism thing so please none of that garbage." That one's a little more flagrant than the post this thread is about, no?
posted by TomMelee at 8:54 PM on May 5, 2009
posted by TomMelee at 8:54 PM on May 5, 2009
Agreed, poor word choice but not worth deleting the whole thread over.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 9:04 PM on May 5, 2009
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 9:04 PM on May 5, 2009
TomMelee, the no god/creationism question you linked to feels arguably different (to me, at least), as it's dealing with questions that there's actual scientific evidence for. If I had asked that same question, I wouldn't want any humans-and-dinosaurs-coexisted! stuff either, because that belief system happily ignores hundreds of years of research performed by people far better educated and smarter than I.
Asking a question like, "I'm bummed, the world sucks, please help me cope with it better" is a philosophical one, one that really can only be addressed with esoteric philosophical (and, as pointed out by DWRoelands at the start of this thread, possibly religious) answers.
posted by shiu mai baby at 4:30 AM on May 6, 2009
Asking a question like, "I'm bummed, the world sucks, please help me cope with it better" is a philosophical one, one that really can only be addressed with esoteric philosophical (and, as pointed out by DWRoelands at the start of this thread, possibly religious) answers.
posted by shiu mai baby at 4:30 AM on May 6, 2009
I have no feelings either way, and was certainly not advocating deletion, wast just pointing it out in the context of the thread.
posted by TomMelee at 6:46 AM on May 6, 2009
posted by TomMelee at 6:46 AM on May 6, 2009
Miko - You are arguing with a straw man of your own construction.
No - it's of your construction. You brought up the analogy with racism and sexism threads, so I was just responding your analogy.
having to preface every discussion of Christianity with special shoutouts to all the non-asshole Christians gets tiring,
I think that would be ridiculous as well. No one's asking for "special shoutouts" and I don't want to see any. All that's being requested is avoiding comments that lazily apply categorical statements where they're inaccurate: sweeping condemnations of a group based on the actions of some members of the group ("Christians are anti-gay," "Christianity spreads evil"). Something we wouldn't tolerate, as you noted, where race or sex is concerned.
And I don't object to it out of any feeling of oppression or anything like that - that stuff is nonsense (though it's worth noting that any of us who are offered a day off on Christmas Day and don't have to break our workday for prayer and and such are also benefiting from the cultural aspects of a nation structured by people from Christian groups - very similarly to the way that men who aren't sexist themselves benefit from male privilege, people who aren't Christian themselves, but don't give any outward signs that they're not, can collect any general social benefits that are perceived as applying to Christians).
I object to it because it's incorrect and uninformed, and because it plays the same game of polarization that it accuses the divisive, socially conservative, or hypocritical members of Christian faiths of playing. If we are concerned about issues and impacts on human beings, then let's focus on that, and not on categorical and inaccurate dismissals of entire groups of well-intentioned human beings engaged in positive social action.
It's fine to detest the lousy principles that can be found in the leadership and membership of many churches and communities, and it's imperative that we oppose those principles when they emerge as public policy. But to make the mistake of assuming that what has been sold under "Now With More Christian" to an uninformed public is to buy wholesale the PR of the conservative power machine seeking to co-opt the political numbers available through appealing to certain specific kinds of faith groups within Christianity. That image was always incorrect and inadequate to express the complexity of American Christianity anyway, but the branding effort was intensely successful. However, thinking people don't have to consume whatever's being sold to them without some critical examination and search for accurate information, and it dumbs down all social debate when we do it.
posted by Miko at 7:45 AM on May 6, 2009 [3 favorites]
No - it's of your construction. You brought up the analogy with racism and sexism threads, so I was just responding your analogy.
having to preface every discussion of Christianity with special shoutouts to all the non-asshole Christians gets tiring,
I think that would be ridiculous as well. No one's asking for "special shoutouts" and I don't want to see any. All that's being requested is avoiding comments that lazily apply categorical statements where they're inaccurate: sweeping condemnations of a group based on the actions of some members of the group ("Christians are anti-gay," "Christianity spreads evil"). Something we wouldn't tolerate, as you noted, where race or sex is concerned.
And I don't object to it out of any feeling of oppression or anything like that - that stuff is nonsense (though it's worth noting that any of us who are offered a day off on Christmas Day and don't have to break our workday for prayer and and such are also benefiting from the cultural aspects of a nation structured by people from Christian groups - very similarly to the way that men who aren't sexist themselves benefit from male privilege, people who aren't Christian themselves, but don't give any outward signs that they're not, can collect any general social benefits that are perceived as applying to Christians).
I object to it because it's incorrect and uninformed, and because it plays the same game of polarization that it accuses the divisive, socially conservative, or hypocritical members of Christian faiths of playing. If we are concerned about issues and impacts on human beings, then let's focus on that, and not on categorical and inaccurate dismissals of entire groups of well-intentioned human beings engaged in positive social action.
It's fine to detest the lousy principles that can be found in the leadership and membership of many churches and communities, and it's imperative that we oppose those principles when they emerge as public policy. But to make the mistake of assuming that what has been sold under "Now With More Christian" to an uninformed public is to buy wholesale the PR of the conservative power machine seeking to co-opt the political numbers available through appealing to certain specific kinds of faith groups within Christianity. That image was always incorrect and inadequate to express the complexity of American Christianity anyway, but the branding effort was intensely successful. However, thinking people don't have to consume whatever's being sold to them without some critical examination and search for accurate information, and it dumbs down all social debate when we do it.
posted by Miko at 7:45 AM on May 6, 2009 [3 favorites]
First of all, thanks to everyone for the well wishes. The surgery went fine. Pain meds have me groggy, but well enough for a quick, hopefully semi-coherent, rant reply.
Miko - You are arguing with a straw man of your own construction.
No - it's of your construction. You brought up the analogy with racism and sexism threads, so I was just responding your analogy.
The straw man I was referring to is your continued insistence that somebody in this thread claimed that all Christians are to blame. Nobody did. Specifically, you put the following statement in scare quotes: "ALL Christians support an evil system." Then you argued against that statement. Thing is, nobody here actually made that statement. Just your straw man. You made it up to represent the extreme position that you wanted to insist we were taking and then you argued against that position even though nobody here actually holds that position or made that statement. That's a textbook example of arguing with a straw man. Then you did it again in your last comment. You put the following in scare quotes: "Christians are anti-gay," "Christianity spreads evil," to request "avoiding comments that lazily apply categorical statements where they're inaccurate." But again - those were actually your lazily applied categorical statements. Nobody else's. Straw men made up out of whole cloth. And... straw. And yes - they were inaccurate.
Nobody here believes that all Christians are to blame. And nobody here said it. Except you. Some people here believe that since there is enough commonality in the aggregate of American Christian belief to effectively create long term, very real, and very specific forms of oppression based almost solely on that common belief, that it is as reasonable to reference Christian oppression of gays and non-Christians as it is to reference white oppression of blacks or to reference American oppression of Native Americans or to reference the patriarchy as forces for evil in the world without stopping to qualify those terms every single time they're used. Some people here seem to believe that if it is "lazy" and "polarizing" to sometimes leave out the "some" in "some Christians" that it is equally lazy and polarizing to automatically assume that "Christians" always means "all Christians," even to the extent of putting words in our mouths by literally inserting an "all" in front of "Christians" where none was originally stated or even implied. And some of us here - or one of us, at least - finds it patronizing when a member of the overwhelming majority in a power imbalance - no matter how well intentioned or how misrepresented by that majority - willfully misrepresents our views while lecturing us about the proper way to talk about it.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 4:16 PM on May 6, 2009 [2 favorites]
Miko - You are arguing with a straw man of your own construction.
No - it's of your construction. You brought up the analogy with racism and sexism threads, so I was just responding your analogy.
The straw man I was referring to is your continued insistence that somebody in this thread claimed that all Christians are to blame. Nobody did. Specifically, you put the following statement in scare quotes: "ALL Christians support an evil system." Then you argued against that statement. Thing is, nobody here actually made that statement. Just your straw man. You made it up to represent the extreme position that you wanted to insist we were taking and then you argued against that position even though nobody here actually holds that position or made that statement. That's a textbook example of arguing with a straw man. Then you did it again in your last comment. You put the following in scare quotes: "Christians are anti-gay," "Christianity spreads evil," to request "avoiding comments that lazily apply categorical statements where they're inaccurate." But again - those were actually your lazily applied categorical statements. Nobody else's. Straw men made up out of whole cloth. And... straw. And yes - they were inaccurate.
Nobody here believes that all Christians are to blame. And nobody here said it. Except you. Some people here believe that since there is enough commonality in the aggregate of American Christian belief to effectively create long term, very real, and very specific forms of oppression based almost solely on that common belief, that it is as reasonable to reference Christian oppression of gays and non-Christians as it is to reference white oppression of blacks or to reference American oppression of Native Americans or to reference the patriarchy as forces for evil in the world without stopping to qualify those terms every single time they're used. Some people here seem to believe that if it is "lazy" and "polarizing" to sometimes leave out the "some" in "some Christians" that it is equally lazy and polarizing to automatically assume that "Christians" always means "all Christians," even to the extent of putting words in our mouths by literally inserting an "all" in front of "Christians" where none was originally stated or even implied. And some of us here - or one of us, at least - finds it patronizing when a member of the overwhelming majority in a power imbalance - no matter how well intentioned or how misrepresented by that majority - willfully misrepresents our views while lecturing us about the proper way to talk about it.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 4:16 PM on May 6, 2009 [2 favorites]
And some of us here - or one of us, at least - finds it patronizing when a member of the overwhelming majority in a power imbalance - no matter how well intentioned or how misrepresented by that majority - willfully misrepresents our views while lecturing us about the proper way to talk about it.
Amen.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 7:38 PM on May 6, 2009
Amen.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 7:38 PM on May 6, 2009
And some of us here - or one of us, at least - finds it patronizing when a member of the overwhelming majority in a power imbalance - no matter how well intentioned or how misrepresented by that majority - willfully misrepresents our views while lecturing us about the proper way to talk about it.
And here is where the disconnect is, where both sides seem to be arguing toward a brick wall, instead of receptive ears. This whole discussion has been wrapped around the self identified Christians stating that it's wrong to apply such terms as "overwhelming majority" with regard to Christianity in the terms that its been projected, as one side against another. Statistically, yes, an overwhelming majority of Americans identify as Christian, but as discussed ad nauseam, when it comes to the "Christian" activities that lead from mocking to outright venom, here on Metafilter, for example, those Christians are not representative of the overwhelming majority. Applying this rationale is not lecturing, it's not some dictation of will upon a powerless minority, but a simple expectation of nuance that everyone, in every discussion on any topic, should hold in a reasonable and respectful conversation.
posted by Atreides at 7:01 AM on May 7, 2009
And here is where the disconnect is, where both sides seem to be arguing toward a brick wall, instead of receptive ears. This whole discussion has been wrapped around the self identified Christians stating that it's wrong to apply such terms as "overwhelming majority" with regard to Christianity in the terms that its been projected, as one side against another. Statistically, yes, an overwhelming majority of Americans identify as Christian, but as discussed ad nauseam, when it comes to the "Christian" activities that lead from mocking to outright venom, here on Metafilter, for example, those Christians are not representative of the overwhelming majority. Applying this rationale is not lecturing, it's not some dictation of will upon a powerless minority, but a simple expectation of nuance that everyone, in every discussion on any topic, should hold in a reasonable and respectful conversation.
posted by Atreides at 7:01 AM on May 7, 2009
I like Brandon's analogy to the sexism threads. It's not about making MetaFilter friendly to religious conversations; it's about the site not being unfriendly toward the people. I appreciate that you delete "apropos of nothing" wizard-in-the-sky comments, Jessamyn. But "I'd hit it" isn't an "apropos of nothing" phenomenon, and I think MetaFilter's problem with religion is closer to that ilk.
I think there are too many comments posted on MetaFilter where, if "Christians" were substituted with almost any comparable term (Jews, Mexicans...even "whites"), you'd see a 200+ MetaTalk thread and possible a deletion and timeout. Instead, they're favorited. I don't care much about whether that makes the site unfriendly to discussing religion; but it makes the site unfriendly, period, and that sucks. MetaFilter has plenty of good threads about art, literature, business, etc., and AskMe can be a gold mine—and that pervasive derision discourages some people from participating in all that other helpful and informative stuff.
Just like the sexism threads: When a bigoted comment pops up, it would be great if more people would flag it and say, "Hey, not cool. Knock it off." Ideally, the moderators.
posted by cribcage at 7:57 AM on May 7, 2009
I think there are too many comments posted on MetaFilter where, if "Christians" were substituted with almost any comparable term (Jews, Mexicans...even "whites"), you'd see a 200+ MetaTalk thread and possible a deletion and timeout. Instead, they're favorited. I don't care much about whether that makes the site unfriendly to discussing religion; but it makes the site unfriendly, period, and that sucks. MetaFilter has plenty of good threads about art, literature, business, etc., and AskMe can be a gold mine—and that pervasive derision discourages some people from participating in all that other helpful and informative stuff.
Just like the sexism threads: When a bigoted comment pops up, it would be great if more people would flag it and say, "Hey, not cool. Knock it off." Ideally, the moderators.
posted by cribcage at 7:57 AM on May 7, 2009
Yeah, everyone is talking at each other, convinced that their are right, no matter what other salient points are being brought up.
Everyone could use a nap.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 9:25 AM on May 7, 2009 [1 favorite]
Everyone could use a nap.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 9:25 AM on May 7, 2009 [1 favorite]
I just had one. It was quite nice, actually, thanks.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 12:05 PM on May 7, 2009
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 12:05 PM on May 7, 2009
Excellent, you deserve a cookie.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 7:29 AM on May 8, 2009
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 7:29 AM on May 8, 2009
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
posted by Mister_A at 10:04 AM on May 4, 2009