Skip to main content

View Diary: "No True Scotsman" and Jesus: UPDATE (89 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Quite a choice of firestorm for your first diary (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Loge, Wee Mama, HeyMikey, JDsg

    You say your point is that the Christian thing to do would be to side with the oppressed. What gives you the idea that Christians, at least on this blog, don't side with the oppressed? It is entirely possible to be a Christian activist for LGBT rights and marriage equallity, and at the same time rightfully insist that the Westboro Baptist Cult Family are neither Baptist nor Christian in any understanding of the word held by Baptists or Christians.

    You are posting as a member of a liberal/progressive blog community. Let's assume you are a person of such persuasion yourself. Does this mean I can now assign you ownership of some behaviors of other liberal/progressive folk that I find to be obnoxious? Things like some Code Pink actions, or Cindy Sheehan in general? You reference gay rights as a category of interest, so if I may assume a pro-gay attitude from you? Are you ready to defend the gays who market reparative therapy? I mean, they are truly gay people who should be treated with respect, so by your thesis you can't properly "disown" them.

    from a bright young conservative: “I’m watching my first GOP debate…and WE SOUND LIKE CRAZY PEOPLE!!!!”

    by Catte Nappe on Tue Apr 10, 2012 at 12:22:30 PM PDT

    •  I say they don't side with (0+ / 0-)

      the oppressed for exactly the reasons I outline in this diary.  When women, GLBT folk, people of other faiths, and atheists are discussing how they are being attacked by rightwing Christians and suddenly the progressive Christian tries to make it a discussion about them and who the true Christians are they are derailing the discussion of the wrong in unhelpful ways and making it harder to address that oppression.  Don't do that.

      •  plenty of progressive christians (0+ / 0-)

        fall within the categories of "women" and "GLBT folk," as Catte Nappe indicates, and as progressives, they're not just forced to live in a society made worse by right-wing Christians but by your comments, marginalized even in their own faith, they have as much right to push back as anyone else.  If you make a statement that is broad enough to encompass both the faith of the rightwing and the leftwing christian, they can correct the record.  Moreover, in recognizing that there's a way that progressive Christians can speak to other Christians in a way that atheists and others perhaps cannot, they've done more to fight oppression than the person concerned with winning the Internet, so claiming they've given cover to anything because of blog comments makes you absurd.

        Question:  when the rightwing christians disown progressive ones, does that help or hurt your case?  If you say hurt, you acknowledge that progressive christians can insist on the right to their own views when the right to that view is denied them.  If you say it helps your case, as in good, religion's now out of the way, then you're forced to admit that you don't think someone else's religion can be important to that person.  There's nothing sudden, and the disowning of progressive christians by the right wing happens all the time and is reinforced in the media, and I'd be less quick to attack allies.

        How about, and it's evidence of remarkable dunderheadedness that this never occurs to you, "yes, Rick Warren doesn't speak for you, let's move on," or even, "yes, Rick Warren has no idea what the beatitudes say, let's move on."  Instead, you went apeshit.  The discussion is only derailed because shrugging your shoulders and moving on to what you rightly see as the larger point interferes with some unstated agenda, or you're just not that bright.  Did you just learn about the NTS fallacy and are now seeing it everywhere?  Anything short of an explicit claim that the right wing aren't Christians doesn't make it.  

        The study of law was certainly a strange discipline. -- Yukio Mishima

        by Loge on Tue Apr 10, 2012 at 05:40:35 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  There's a key statement (0+ / 0-)
        discussing how they are being attacked by rightwing Christians and suddenly the progressive Christian tries to make it a discussion about them
         

        When the issue is attacks on women, GLBT folks, people of other faiths, etc. I think you will generally find that pretty much everybody on this site is on board - and you might well not have a clue who is/isn't a person of religious faith, because it doesn't come up. Who do we boycott? Which legislators do we need to call? What should we write in LTEs?

        I think you will find that progressive Christians don't "suddenly" initiate such discussion until the post (diary or comment) starts applying broad brush statement to all Christians, not just rightwing Christians; and perhaps taking it further to opine that all Christians (or all people of any faith) are delusional and ignorant mouthbreathers bent on creating a theocracy. In such cases it's the critics of religion who changed the subject.

        from a bright young conservative: “I’m watching my first GOP debate…and WE SOUND LIKE CRAZY PEOPLE!!!!”

        by Catte Nappe on Tue Apr 10, 2012 at 05:49:12 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site