feeding time at the lion enclosure
Oct. 12th, 2004 01:08 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
darren_strangerHestia's recent comments about Family First, religious groups and the popularity of Christian-bashing in general has reminded me of something i've been pondering lately.
As Hestia succinctly put it: "They see things through their own cultural filters just as we all do, and some of what I hear fellow lefties say is simply the flipside of The Best of Christian Bigotry." That's pretty much what i've been thinking lately, whenever i see 'Christian' used as a dirty word by people who would quite rightly be outraged by the same attitude applied to Muslims or Jews or Pagans. It's very similar to the habit a lot of us have of decrying racism and then vilifying Americans at the drop of a hat (of which i'm as guilty as any).
Of course, there are some views that are pushed in the name of Christianity that i am utterly opposed to, especially those based in homophobia or other conservative prejudices, but those things i am against on the grounds of opposing the prejudice, not the religion. I also recognise that a lot of these prejudices are not necessarily representative of Christianity, and are often contrary to the religion's teachings (passing judgement itself is against what Jesus taught, as i understand it, though i'd like to read up more on it again before telling people who spend their whole lives studying the Bible that they have it arse about). Things like the Australian Christian Lobby's "Christian Values Checklist" that are big on opposing gays, single mums and pornography, but silent on apparently 'non-core' Christian values like charity, non-judgement and social justice issues, i barely even rate as Christian and consciously try to use terms like 'fundamentalist' to describe (athough, as Hestia pointed out, even a lot of born-again churches have a lot of positive, compassionate attitudes and aren't all about enforcing their beliefs on everyone).
Anyway, i just wanted to make mention of this, maybe as food for thought next time you want to use 'Christian' as a four letter word (perhaps try replacing it with 'Muslim' or 'Jew' and see if you'd still say it).
As Hestia succinctly put it: "They see things through their own cultural filters just as we all do, and some of what I hear fellow lefties say is simply the flipside of The Best of Christian Bigotry." That's pretty much what i've been thinking lately, whenever i see 'Christian' used as a dirty word by people who would quite rightly be outraged by the same attitude applied to Muslims or Jews or Pagans. It's very similar to the habit a lot of us have of decrying racism and then vilifying Americans at the drop of a hat (of which i'm as guilty as any).
Of course, there are some views that are pushed in the name of Christianity that i am utterly opposed to, especially those based in homophobia or other conservative prejudices, but those things i am against on the grounds of opposing the prejudice, not the religion. I also recognise that a lot of these prejudices are not necessarily representative of Christianity, and are often contrary to the religion's teachings (passing judgement itself is against what Jesus taught, as i understand it, though i'd like to read up more on it again before telling people who spend their whole lives studying the Bible that they have it arse about). Things like the Australian Christian Lobby's "Christian Values Checklist" that are big on opposing gays, single mums and pornography, but silent on apparently 'non-core' Christian values like charity, non-judgement and social justice issues, i barely even rate as Christian and consciously try to use terms like 'fundamentalist' to describe (athough, as Hestia pointed out, even a lot of born-again churches have a lot of positive, compassionate attitudes and aren't all about enforcing their beliefs on everyone).
Anyway, i just wanted to make mention of this, maybe as food for thought next time you want to use 'Christian' as a four letter word (perhaps try replacing it with 'Muslim' or 'Jew' and see if you'd still say it).
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-10-12 03:21 am (UTC)Sad to see that they appear to be 100% representative of organised Christian politics, though. Can anyone point out an exception?
no subject
Date: 2004-10-12 03:35 am (UTC)That's kind of the problem - the ones who aren't busy casting stones and getting worked up over who's allowed to rub uglies with who would be the ones that don't make as much noise. The Fred Hollows and Tim Costellos of the world you don't hear quite so often about, but i hope there's at least as many of them out there as Fred Niles.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-12 04:22 am (UTC)I'm sure it would be as equally bad if the possible balance in government was a fundamental muslim, or a fundamental satanist.. I have no problem inserting the appropriate religion if needs be :P
(the word to note , of course is fundamental.. the religion per se is irrelevant)
I guess to seperate church from state is just an ideal..
no subject
Date: 2004-10-12 05:25 am (UTC)Of course, keeping church and state separate doesn't necessarily mean that if you're religious you can't stand up for your viewpoint via politics the same as us pinko humanists can. Nor that religious tolerance means not opposing things that you find objectionable.
It's all very complicated because in standing up for anything there's always a degree of pushing your own beliefs onto someone else (such as the belief that honesty and fairness is more important than financial security, or that stoning someone to death is wrong), so all you really can do is debate what's right and fair and try to come to some common ground to base it on (and hopefully avoid killing each other over it).
It's always a juggling act when you get into this stuff, and whoever works out an answer will probably get elected God (or nailed to a tree).
no subject
Date: 2004-10-12 03:45 am (UTC)I think people forget that sometimes one party members errant view (mr "burn lesbians at the stake") might have been a horrible embarrasment to the party as a whole.
Having said that, they do seem pretty prejudiced in the usual ways.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-12 06:21 am (UTC)That volunteer's comments are probably the least damning thing (if the most controvertial). It's like taking my comments that i sometimes feel like the whole human race deserves extermination as indicative of the Greens agenda because i volunteered for them. (I've actually seen Andrew Bolt use comments from a former Greens candidate, taken god knows how badly out of context, to suggest the Greens want to kill disabled babies).
But as i've said elsewhere, to me the biggest mark against Family First is their refusal to preference a Liberal candidate becuse she was a lesbian. That was an official desision that indicates that this group does hold homophobic views (which i'm always suspicious the phrase 'family values' is code for, among other things). That there was no mention of an anti-gay stance in any material i read of theirs makes me doubly suspicious of how upfront they are about their views and agenda.
But we'll see what their senators do when they move in.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-13 12:02 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-12 03:42 am (UTC)It's always a joy to point out miss translations and get condemed as satan's pawn.
Not to mention all the books about Jesus and his life that are just as legitimate but didn't get included because of whatever political reasons at the time.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-12 04:10 am (UTC)I tend to be more interested in the selective application of the books that *are* recognised as the basis of the religion. It's been a few years (which is why i want to read it again) but my memory, particularly of the parts that claimed to quote Jesus himself, is that it was very big on basic humanitarian principles (love thy neighbour, do as you would be done by, the good Samaritan), not casting judgement (beam in your own eye, casting the first stone) as well as a surprising amount of preaching against being rich (eye of a needle, they have had their reward, give up all your possessions). I find it odd when people ignore all that and seem to focus on what consenting adults choose to do with their rude bits.
Of course, i try to remember that it's none of my business, just as it's nobody's business to call me a hypocrite for being a vegetarian but wearing leather. However, if i started telling other people not to eat meat, then i'd open myself up that sort of criticism, so when someone tries to enforce their beliefs onto others who aren't hurting anybody, i'm happy to point out the hypocrisy.
Like i said, i don't have a problem with Christianity (though i may disagree on certain points), but i do have a problem with bigotry, and a pet hate for the mindset that thinks 'morality' is about sex only.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-12 04:25 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-12 05:11 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-12 04:16 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-12 04:20 am (UTC):)
no subject
Date: 2004-10-12 06:23 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-12 11:55 pm (UTC)i suspect there may be just the tiniest bit of exaggeration somewhere in that post..
no subject
Date: 2004-10-13 12:01 am (UTC)