Category: philosophy/religion topics
I had a recent conversation with my daughter, a liberal Christian, in which I brought up the point that some of the people we know, who are Bible-believing conservative Christians, might have a harder time with her as a liberal Christian than with me as an atheist.
I don't mean "dislike" or "get mad at," I mean, find less tenable, or even disagree with more.
I had reasons for bringing this up for her safety in specific situations.
But she was rather befuddled I think this in general.
She asked me why, and here was what I think is their argument, so far as I understood things: They see the liberal Christian, her in this case, as the threat because you still name the same general beliefs, but in many ways differ enough from the traditional view that they might see you as a fake Christian or as a threat to their specific interpretation narrative.
Atheists, on the other hand, (some of whom can be quite obnoxious like any other group), are on the outside, not trying to reinterpret or "cherry pick" the texts. In fact, most of the atheists I know read the texts the same way the evangelicals do, only come back with different results re: plausibility.
So, if you're a Bible-believing evangelical fundamentalist Christian, one or all of the above, am I wrong?
I'm genuinely asking because now due to my daughter's recent movements, I'm being introduced to some extent to the liberal Christian views. It does look, on the surface, to be entirely different from the evangelicals I grew up with, sure. I haven't looked deep into it or tried to deconstruct it as an atheist typically might, but I've not got any of their apologetics or arguments if they've written those yet. She was quite surprised when I brought that up, but I did so to tell her to be safe with certain people we know, some evangelical hardliners.
I think you are right. I'm not saying I agree with being liberal, but some people are very critical.
Honestly, I do not agree with the hardlineing of hate speak. My thoughts are try to show love to all, so they don't miss a chance at hearing The Gospel.
For example:
My preacher teaches to love the sinner, hate the sin. While some will just shun the sinner, and turn them completely off.
I prefer not to push others away, cause I was pushed once. I don't like this whole Liberal Christian thing, but, I'm not going to turn my back on every liberal who says they're Christian. It's not my place to say who's got a place in Heaven, but to share what I believe, cause of what I learned from those who spend more time than me, studying the Bible.
However, some people are just harsh. I know someone who was pushed from this one church, for getting a divorce. I think this person had reasons that even the New Testament gives, for going through with said divorce. If someone cheated on me, I'd have the right. This person had attempted reconciling, with no success. So I guess, in a small way, I'm not as hard as some would be. However, my reasons are Biblical for having some compassion.
And, though God says nothing about what if your wife or husband beats you senseless, it's common sense to leave. Some Christians judged me, when I got divorced. Too bad. I like living. I can't testify, if I'm dead.
Leo, hope this helps.
Blessings,
Sarah
Well when hate speech comes out of any Christian faith, it is antithetical to the teachings of Jesus. That hipocracy alone is enough to discredit many who profess faith. Saw the movie Spotlight yesterday. It is about the child molestation scandal in the Catholic church. Worth watching. It was far worse than I had realized and though Catholics are not evangelicals, the church allowing what is so clearly wrong by all the professed beliefs is instructive.
Thanks guys.
I've lacked the courage to watch Spotlight and I'll have to be really ready for that one, I think. The Catholic devotion to their tradition in spite of the victims has got to be one of the worst cases. One brownie point the evangelicals get from me is their attitude towards sexual predation. At least now / in the past 20 years or so. They do background checks on perspective volunteers, and carry out other practices you hear about from other organizations like having more than one adult in the room at a time with kids.
If there was a god, they should be getting afterlife points for that.
You make it sound as if they have no mental ability to think?
I understand about the sexual abuse, but that was a cover up, not because they weren't thinking.
Having two adults in a room with kids didn't seem to help that situation, because it was done in private.
So, God you are saying gives "afterlife points " for rashanal thinking?
In that case, it be saying all or most are stupid, and only a few are going to get these points.
Smile.
Oh no. I actually think a lot of the Catholics were far more opposed to the situation than the leadership. The leadership was merely hidebound in their tradition, my opinion, I don't know. But I do know I've met many Catholics at least as horrified by what went on as anyone on the outside.
I say *at least*, because remember for them it's actually their people doing it. It's one thing if some guy down the street commits an awful crime, but imagine it was your own flesh and blood having done so. And some of these religious communities are tight as flesh and blood. So, I think if we mention this situation the most intellectually honest way to look at it is not "catholics" having allowed it, but the "Catholic establishment" having not done anything about it once they found out.
That is the actual claim, the establishment didn't do anything to stop it once they knew. Or at least that they underperformed.
Someone who is actually raised Catholic could probably explain this better.
But since Christian groups consider themselves families, it's probably fair to make the analogy too: you can't punish the family for what one or a few family members did. Not for that crime. If the peple responsible for things didn't contact the authorities and such, then those people are responsible for having aided and abetted. But even then it's not the entire family. And those who didn't even know what was going on are likely to be at least as horrified as an outsider. I'm guessing, probably way worse because it's their own people who did it.
I applaud the evangelical fundamentalists I've known about who took modern security measures because that's not natural in their environment the way it is on a Coast Guard base or even in places where the Wife works. So yes, I did and do think that for them it was probably the extra mile to take these kinds of measures, including background checks.
Well they believe in confession.
You can confess anything to your priest and that confession is private.
You are suppose to repent and not do it again.
For that reason is why it went on so long.
Instead of admitting the priest had a problem and removing him from his problem, they wanted to heal him, or fix him.
Next you have the human factor. We are cruel when it comes to protecting what we want or getting what we desire.
Selfish.
We have some good priest, but I really believe the ones that can't handle restricting nature should not be allowed to continue. They need to marry, or whatever.
Sure, they can still work in the church, but not in that job.
Last that curch would have to admit it is not natural for a man, nor woman to cut off human desires.
I think you're right. But we've digressed this topic.
I was actually hoping for a few more responses from the evangelicals who frequent this place.
I do think we have to be more clear when we talk about so-called hate speech.
A Christian, for instance, who believes in a literal hell and thinks that I as an atheist am going there, is not technically involved in any sort of hate speech.
The same can be said of the faith-healing Christians who think I don't have enough faith to be sighted, or those Christians who think the LGBT people choose it and are reprobate.
Me saying that all three of these groups are holding to an entirely subjective ethos, and even saying their conclusions are entirely devoid of objective evidence, is not hate speech.
When it becomes wrong is where we find inciting to violence, or this "cry bully" method where one starts a controversy and then cries the victim because someone else gave a rejoinder that was equal and opposite.
I just think, in these conversations, we have to be careful about how we use the term "hate speech". It's become one of those catch phrases people use to shut down an argument when they know they can't win. And both sides use it.
If you'd like to se bona fide hate speech, look up a man by the name of Steven Anderson on YouTube. Any evangelical Christian could completely destroy his arguments without preparation, so I'm not claiming he represents their side. But he does actually engage in "hate speech," if you wish to call it that. But in the U.S., even his speech is constitutionally protected, and I stand with this nation's founding fathers in that respect.
But people challenging another's ideas, even vocipherously, are *not* engaging in hate speech. Even if the one being challenged really holds those ideas dear.
Just wanted to drop this in, because too often that term gets thrown around. And Sarah I'm not blaming you, you merely brought up some might engage in so-called hate speech. I'm merely saying we ought to be more introspective before determining something we don't like is hate speech.
Leo, I think you are sorely mistaken in your assumption that all evangelical Christians are conservative. We may have some conservative views, but everyone does, to some extent or other, just as everyone is liberal about at least something.
I, for one, am not strictly conservative as you all on here probably assume I am; it just so happens to be that many of the topics I tend to post on, are ones that I either choose the opposite view of my own to play devil's advocate, or it's actually my opinion. You guys probably don't even know one from the other, because it's just something I do quietly as it's a non-issue.
I'm sorry to know that you've had such poor experiences with people who are Christian, but you ought to check yourself before claiming all evangelicals are this or that, or any other group is (insert claim here). Just sayin'.
Chelsea has a point. I've heard folks that call themselves Baptists, go to hate riots. Our church teaches to love everyone, even if you don't agree with how they worship, live, whatever.
It's just one of those things. And, I might point out, that not any one person is like another... Unless they're twins. Even then, they have different minds.
Blessings,
Sarah
Good point about assumptions. However, it is well documented that Evangelicals tend towards both social and political conservatism. Not all, of course.
As far as hate speech, I think we all know what that is. It isn't saying that being gay is wrong, but when it is said gay people should be killed, that is hate speech. Judging others openly and loudly, may be hateful and hipacritical, but not necessarily hate speech.
Just to defend Leo's writing here. When you say conservative christian, it
doesn't mean christians who are also conservative. It doesn't actually mean that
you believe in small government, vote republican, and happen to also believe
jesus christ is your lord and savior. It means you believe jesus christ is your lord
and savior, and think the church shouldn't change or stray away from what it is.
Conservative christians are the ones who think that the church should stay the
same. Liberal christians are the ones who are ok with churches changing their
message to fit the changing world. They're ok with gay marriage, because gay
marriage is where society is going. Conservative christians aren't ok with gay
marriage because its not where society has been until now. So it has nothing to
do with how liberal or conservative you are as a person. It has to do with how
liberal or conservative your views on religion are.
Cody's right.
Chelsea, I was speaking in general terms, not outlining every single person and every single exception. That is technically impossible. And my experiences have little to do with this, although I would not honestly say "I've had bad experiences with Christians."
Then again, I don't consider being judged or pressed to be bad experiences. Difficult at times, sure. But not "bad". In fact, such pressures caused me to really examine my understanding of things, and arrive at conclusions I now have. Conclusions I hadn't considered as carefully before, coming from the dominant culture and worldview in the West.
Now as to conservative? Well, I am in a lot of ways. Maybe not socially, but certainly where it comes to government regulation, free speech infringement like we now have with the Left, all kinds of things I come down right of center on.
The reason for the "Conservative Christian," and "liberal atheist" tropes are twofold:
The most obvious can be traced to Francis Schaeffer, Jerry Fallwell and kind. They conducted a wedding ceremony between the Republican Party and the Evangelical Christians, so they have been one flesh for over 40 years. I think the only way that will ever split is a Great Divorce where the Republicans find the Evangelicals are now a liability rather than an asset. That time will come eventually. The evangelical church was bought, and if you've been bought you can be sold. Or at least dropped.
That's the reason for the "conservative Christian" trope, where Christians are supposed to vote republican and all that that implies.
The "liberal atheist" or "atheist commie" trope is a bit different. Before socialism was ever tried by any government, there were some 19th-century enlightenment atheist thinkers who took a very globalist approach. Your evangelical apologists no doubt will tell you about David Hume's globalist leanings, among others.
The problem is, these liberal systems have been tried. Since the atheist isn't necessarily tied to an idea in the same way a religious person is, they can see the problems with it and no longer find the system viable. The exception to this rule is the tenured academic who, like your religious apologist, personifies the statement: "It is hard for a man to know something when his salary depends upon him not knowing it."
Many atheists died in gulags in Russia, and under Stalin, the Jesuit priest and the skeptic were "brothers of the gallows", hanged together on the same tree. That is an aspect your evangelical apologists very conveniently leave out.
So while I think you were mistaken in your use of tropes here, I fully understand why. And no, of course I was not offended; objective reality does not offend me.
Leo, I don't follow what other people claim; I follow God's law.
And, for the record, I guess you guys here would call me a liberal Christian because I don't think anything should stay the same. We humans constantly evolve and change, and so too, do churches, the types of music your favorite artist plays, ETC.
Jesus Christ is my Lord and savior, but I'm not pushy, confrontational or whatever you wanna call it, when it comes to discussing my faith because there's a time and a place for that.
Despite what the media usually portrays, a majority of Christians are not pushy, I think. And it's unfair of the rest of us to portray them as pushy.
Sure, there are some who are so, but this is true of any group.
Also, you sharing your opinion is certainly not seen as pushy, or at least not seen that way by me.
Even a strongly argued position is not pushy.
Liberals discouraging freedom of speech? Oh please. That is a myopic view of reality in my view.
Liberals discourage freedom of speech all the time. Haven't you heard of political correctness? We can't be blind; we're visually impaired/visually challenged / differently sighted.
Or the intense need of "safe spaces" by college students now?
It's very different from when you and I were younger, Pasco. When we were
college kids liberals *defined* acceptance of free speech, including the speech
that offended us. Not so with the millennials anymore.
I disagree. Two points: 1 Conservatives have often labeled unwanted speech as unpatriotic. That libel results in discouraging speech and is every bit as PC as anything from the left.
2 It doesn't limit free speech for those of us who do not want biased labels to stand up and freely tell you we find it offensive. We do not have to agree with your speech just because you have the right to say it. We have the right to object. Though PC can become extreme, that is not at issue. What is happening now on the right is coded language or disrespect of a group has become blatant. But when the targeted group objects, they get accused of limiting speech. non PC language is now a code for hate speech.
BTW, I agree that things have changed on campus since our day. In my view though this is mostly due to the excessive abuse of free speech particularly from bigotted professors. I have worked on a college campus for the past 20 years, and I saw this development directly. Free speech also requires responsibility. That part is currently missing on the extreme right.
Not sure how this topic devolved, but for once I agree with Pasco. Saying that
something is offensive isn't limiting free speech, its objecting to spoken words.
And its what has allowed us blind people to gain so many rights, though there is
still a long way left to go, over the lifetime of someone my age. And please stop
using the word millinial to refer to me, its highly insulting.
I definitely think the free speech arguments are technically much more nuanced than most on either side would have us believe. Surely, you both are right: Saying something is offensive is in and of itself free speech. Arguing the point and actually changing minds is also free speech. As I recently attempted to do with a holocaust denier.
Even private organizations not taking public money certainly have a right to suppress unwanted speech in their spaces, as churches and private universities have long done. Of course, suppressing the argument is by extension a show of weakness in the counter-argument. If, let us say, a pack of six-day Creationists want to suppress any discussion of evolution, even by Christians like Francis Collins, doesn't that by extension demonstrate the weakness inherent in the Creationist argument?
Now where problems come into play is when a public university suppresses speech, or Sarah Palin suppresses books with nonChristian ideals in her local public library. The reason that becomes a problem is the same reason from Amendment I in the Constitutiopn that we don't publicly fund religion. It's the negative version, if you will. We can't publicly fund religion as that is a state-sponsorship of that religion. The negative side, if you will, is the protection of free speech. We cannot fund the supporession of free speech using public funds. Whether it's Sarah Palin's suppression of nonChristian literature in an Alaskan public library, or ideological suppression and conformity on college campuses that accept public money, it's clearly wrong.
Interestingly, if somen e has successfully blocked the holocaust denier's speech, I would never have learned they have a movement, or even that they have detailed arguments, falsifiable as those arguments might be. I think finding out how a racial supremacist, or a six-day Creationist, or a modern social justice warrior thinks, is actually beneficial. Most beneficial when you hear them speak for themselves. If you engage with such people and ultimately dismantle their arguments, you're stronger. Without blocking them, without resorting to the "I'm offended" argumentum absurdum, you don't show a shred of weakness in your argument.
This is exactly what some of us have been trying to tell Evangelical Christians for a very long time. And within that crowd you can learn what argument suppression actually looks like once it's allowed to take root, blossom, and ultimately go to seed. It doesn't start that way, it ends up that way. And for that reason, I'm much more vested in the idea of protecting speech that offends me, because I actually think I'm right on some things.
I agree with your points up to the point when incitement to harm comes into play. There is also some room for discussion when a professor in a public institution uses his platform and power over grading to intimidate or otherwise intentionally offend his students. Free speech requires responsible exercise of same.
You're probably right re: the professor especially. I think incitement to harm has some wiggle room, which is why the despicable Westboro Baptists and Steven Anderson can both say what they will in their own environments.
You said you worked at university, I'm presuming as a professor. I admit I never have.
But what you say seems correct: a grade should be an objective measure, not incumbent on right belief, whatever that right belief happens to be.