Generalizations.

[DIKB]

I was checking out another thread, about the lord's prayer and harassment of people not participating. At one point in the replies to the OP, someone mentioned getting tired of christians. Like always, some DUer felt the need to CORRECT the poster for not differentiating between the oppressive christians, from the more tolerant. This has happened to me in the past for my comments not selectively criticizing the worst of the worst christians (still don't know what to call them). Somehow it's the fault of the victims for not stressing the differences between all the religious people, and allow for special exemptions for those not viewing us as evil for not worshipping their god?

I have been viewed negatively by people for not believing in any god. What has been ironic is that, in some cases, I know that I would have been looked on more favorably if I was muslim, than atheist. Given generalizations made about all muslims being terrorists, especially by the extremely ignorant FR types, I can't help but feel I am viewed as worse than a murderer. Given all the negative treatment and sentiment, whenever comments are made about said treatment, comments, etc. I'M the one that's supposed to tread lightly?

Whenever an African-American starts complaining about the oppression face by "White America," are we supposed to correct that generalization? I never see these exemptions stressed for republicans when someone complains about how oppressive they have been. More common is Democratic criticism, stressing that someone is a DINO or DLC Democrat, given this board, that's expected though.

When are generalizations acceptable?

And if this is a case of political correctness, I can start to understand the appeal of "South Park Conservative," the backlash against the PC atmosphere. I think some people need to realize that others on this board desperately need to vent their frustrations and nitpicking details is just one more way to alienate others and drive people away. Sometimes all that is needed is a mental check. Just say to yourself, "He/She's frustrated, and I know they're not talking about me."

[BlackVelvet04]

1. There's a difference

"I never see these exemptions stressed for republicans when someone complains about how oppressive they have been."

Republicans shouldn't be members of this forum....correct? However there are many liberal Christians and liberal southerners and even liberal southern Christians. Liberals shouldn't have to put up with being vilified by other liberals on this forum. They support liberal candidates and D.U. just like others do.

[DIKB]

6. Which just reveals

the defensive self-interest aspect of it.

Somehow people feel the need, be it from a form of hyper-sensitivity, to correct others. Even though the case is VERY rarely a sweeping generalization of "All Christians" and is more often an innocuous reference to being oppressed by christians.

I can't speak for others but I am under no illusion that ALL christians that are the same, nor have I ever implied as much. However I and many others like me are often corrected for not explicitly stating that it is the "fundamentalist, fascistic, oppressive. . . . type of christians (not at all like you good ones) that annoy me."

[BlackVelvet04]

25. I'll tell you like I told someone else concerning bashing

a group of people....it's not progressive and it's not inclusive.

Is this what liberals have to do to be better? Bash whole groups because of their religion or where they live?

Not only is it not progressive or liberal it's juvenile, petty and mean spirited.

[Vexatious Ape]

2. I hear you.

I've been ripped to shreds for making anti christian posts before. Political Correctness can be frustrating at times and we should never forget the first form of PC: the taboo of speaking ill of religious faith.

[Warpy]

5. It may be helpful to specify "fundies"

as shorthand for the rapture addled folks who follow that screwball Calvinism infused with Rand that makes them worship the wealthy and vote GOP.

Purely anti Christian posts paint with far too broad a brush for this forum.

[DIKB]

7. Ok

I was feeling pretty good about my classification of "fundamentalist, fascistic, oppressive. . . . type of christians (not at all like you good ones) that annoy me."

Until I saw your little gem
"the rapture addled folks who follow that screwball Calvinism infused with Rand that makes them worship the wealthy and vote GOP"

This belongs in the DU dictionary. :bounce:

[Vexatious Ape]

8. It is funny how they like to mix their Jesus with Rand.

[TahitiNut]

3. Aren't we told that, in the absence of the word 'ALL' or 'EVERY,' anyone ...

... taking offense is merely ignorant and bigoted? I thought that was the last 'lesson' we were given. It's hard to keep track. :eyes:

If someone were to state that "women are prostitutes," I doubt that the post would survive for 30 nanoseconds. Far less time than if one said "some women are prostitutes" - even though that's merely a Nevada Tourism fact.

Someday I'll find out where folks get these licenses. :dunce:

[LostInAnomie]

13. That does seem to be the trend anymore.

You can post whatever you like about any group as long as you don't include the words "all" or "every". Then if anyone from said group takes offense it HAS to be because the comment in some way reflects their behavior. :eyes:

I think the new rule goes: Unless someone uses the words "all" or "every" or points you out specifically, you cannot take offense over any sweeping generalization about your ethnic group.

They change day to day though. :shrug:

[dmallind]

4. Well said - but not even necessary

I DON'T make the distinction. Of course I know that there are perfectly noble and decent individual Xians who do not want to dismiss or demean nonbelievers. That should go without saying.

However the idea that these people are the majority of Xians and that it's a "few extreme fundies" who are the problem is demonstrably false. If it were not, the liberal Xians would have their own popular cable channels to preach love and tolerance and freedom of conscience in religion instead of televised Xianity being wall to wall frothing hate and smug predictions of eternal hellfire for the heathens. If it were not, the huge mega-churches springing up in every suburb would be UCC or even UU not SBC and charismatic. If it were not, the massively funded Xian lobbies (funded as they are by millions of small donations from individual believers) such as the AFA and so on who rule the roost in local and state GOP politics (and did so in national before PNAC muscled them out) would be pushing aid to the homeless, efforts for peace, and inclusion instead of gay-bashing, war and retardation of science.

The fundamental (pun intended) truth is that the Xian extreme is really the Xian mainstream, and that it is the liberal believers who are a fringe minority. As such to me it's perfectly appropriate to use a general term, just like we do when we characterize all Republicans in certain ways when a small minority of them are actually decent and reasonable people who simply believe that Eisenhower style Repbublicanism is both salvageable and the best option for the country.

No doubt believers will get upset with me too, but the question remains a simple one for them. If the majority of Xians are so tolerant and reasonable and progressive, why do you have such a tough time getting your voices heard over the "fringe" Dobsons, Haggards, Robertsons, Weyrichs, Viguerles, Van Impes, Phelps's, Coburns, Brownbacks, Frists, Santorums, etc., etc., etc. ...? You can't even blame the media going for colorful and controversial soundbites. Pat Robertson can afford his own media because millions of believers agree with him. If millions more agree with your kind and decent Xianity why can't you buy your own?

[pscot]

9. I would take your premise a step farther

The "tolerant" denominations provide political cover for the "intolerant" christians. Just as "peaceful" muslims enable the more violent sects. Religion is a dangerously atavistic form of behaviour. We would be far better off without it.

[dmallind]

10. Hmmm. not sure I agree

IF everyone were well versed in logic and critical thinking you'd be right. But religion, I must in all honesty admit, does provide a positive influence on some people's lives by giving them a sense of identity, inclusion and comfort. Take that away from everyone and I think we'd see a rise in sociopathic behavior. Religion (as opposed to faith) evolved very quickly into a social control mechanism for a reason - it works!

Western Europe has had many decades if not a couple of centuries of less rigorous and important a role for organized religion in society, and in those earlier times often relied on homogenous national identity as a source of inclusion and self esteem, etc. Since the latter was never an option for the US, and sure as heck isn't now, I believe shared and active religious belief fills that void. Why are atheists always dead last on any poll of political acceptance - below blacks, Mormons, Muslims, Jews etc? Because we fly in the face of America = Godly self identity.

I'd rather keep religion around, and even keep it healthy, if we could find a way to stop it being harmful.

Pipe dreams either way of course!

[pscot]

12. Your argument on behalf of religion

is a gloss on the proposition that people can't behave well without it. I don't find that convincing. Altruistic behavior occurs naturally in families and in larger groups. Love and Mutual Respect spring from the bonds of the family unit. The bible is crammed with rules that are, for the most part, ignored. Even the condensed version, the 10 commandments, are mostly given lip service. In the most god beset parts of the planet, the USA and the Arab world, murder is common, though our scriptures universally forbid it. A majority of the victims are women, and scripture sanctions the subjugation of women. On the other hand, much of the New Testament deals with right-behavior toward on another. The sermon on the mount tells provides most of what's needed to live a just life. No god required.

Still, as you suggest, the argument is probably moot, since entrenched religion is unlikely to disappear over night. Our sacred triumvirate are Capitalism, Consumerism and Christianity. It's an unholy synergism, but highly effective. It has created the best of all possible worlds. God bless Amerika.

[dmallind]

18. Good point but slight clarification

It's not that I think many CAN'T behave well without religion, but rather that I think many WOULDN'T. Not because they have all of a sudden lost their fear of hell or any such nonsense, but because religion serves many people in the US as a kind of crutch (apologies to Jesse!). Even though it's sometimes hard for us to understand why, a lot of people do place much of their self-image in their faith, and regardless of what else is unpleasant or difficult in their lives, they are convinced - utterly and completely - that their god loves them and that they are special creations of that god.

Take that away suddenly (again if it were possible) and you have millions of Americans who all of a sudden have lost a major part of the connection that makes them a part of society. Religion is such an important part of the lives of many Americans that it would be a vaccuum which all manner of things could fill - some of them far more harmful.

I grew up in the UK and despite the "Church of England" very few people centered their lives on religious belief OR obervance. One of the biggest differences I noticed here - long before I became an "organized" atheist or even saw the point of organized atheism being necessary (a British Atheists group would be like a white pride movement in Sweden - rather unnecessary and a bit suspect) is how big a part overt and all-consuming religion was in the lives of otherwise normal Americans.

[pscot]

21. So you fear Americans would run Amok

if their religious underpinnings were suddenly snatched away? Possibly. As a nation we lean pretty heavily on our delusions. On the other hand we might just take up bowling, or form knitting circles. After all, the Empire figured pretty large in the British delusional system and they seem to have soldiered on despite its loss. Children learn that Santa and the Easter rabbit are not real, and they cope. We may yet grow up.

[Homer Wells]

15. I don't think these "addled" Xtians

even really take the concept of Christianity seriously.


The term "Christian " gives them a sort of invulnerability, allowing them to profess true belief in the system, while using their own narrow-minded, bigoted, and faux-superior agenda to claim the right-to-power. Any criticism of them is met with a high howl of indignation and claims of persecution. Sadly, many of the more moderate Christians, adherents of "truthiness" over "truthfulness", join this unholy chorus.

As long as people are afraid to call these "Xtians" on their BS, ain't much going to change.

:banghead: :(

[LanternWaste]

16. You seem to think that all mainstream Christianity concerns itself with getting "air-time"

"...is demonstrably false. If it were not, the liberal Xians would have their own popular cable channels..."

Not necessarily. You seem to think that all mainstream Christianity concerns itself with getting "air-time". Most churches (read: the small ones) don't have access to that kind of money.

Also, the radical, fringe Christians get plenty of air-time simply due to their message. Fred Phelps has a much smaller congregation than my church does, get a huge amount of news-time dedicated to it, more so than my church. Why? They have a much more radical message that makes for good copy.

I don't know the membership rolls for the Dobon's, Falwell's, et. al. v. the smaller churches, but I've a hunch the smaller churches have a greater, though much more highly dispersed congregation. We don't want to be on the news. We don't want millions of dollars.

We don't want that lifestyle. We'd rather concern ourselves with Meals on Wheels, Outreach Programs, Individual Ministries and Missionary works.

We're quiet, we're dutiful and we don't "buy or sell" our religion. We won't fight fire with fire and we certainly don't make for good water-cooler conversation on Monday mornings. That would be, I dare say an anathema to our true mission.

[dmallind]

19. But then all you are doing

is allowing YOUR faith to be co-opted and represented by loonies. Your church may be bigger then Phelps's but I guarantee you it's a lot smaller than Robertson's donor base, and unless you are an extremely liberal denomination/congregation there is probably some overlap between yourselves and the latter.

Isn't it fair to say that evangelism (in the original meaning) is a central part of the faith? Didn't Jesus specifically direct his followers to take the message wherever they could? Small works of local charity are very positive things and I'll not say a word against them, but if you do not evangelize (again original meaning) as effectively as possible, aren't you undervaluing both a secular and a spiritual responsibility to spread your more benign version of the Xian message?

There are approximately 250 million Xians in this country, so if even 125,000,001 of them are of the more moderate and decent stripe (liberal Xians always seem to claim to be the majority), you'd think some of them would have made a better job out of evangelizing liberal Xianity. Heck based on population numbers (even the BEST estimates posit some 21 million atheists) oragnized atheism does a better job of getting the message out - and that's when we are considered not real citizens, when we are reviled, when we are ignored and when we, shamefully but honestly, are absolutely horseshit stupid about PR for the most part as groups. How much better should 6 times that number of the much more positively perceived and socially acceptable liberal Xians be?

[LanternWaste]

26. Our Churches *do* evangelize

Our Churches *do* evangelize. However, don't get caught in the trap that one can only evangelize through speaking. Works, too contribute greatly to spreading the Massage. How you get the idea that my church doesn't evangelize simply because we don't try to get on the evening news or have our own electronic broadcasting station is beyond me.

One can evangelize through works and good deeds, and one can "evangelize" through getting air time on the local evening news. We choose the former.

Furthermore, we haven't let anything get co-opted. Falwell, et.al. are simply redefining a *new*, secular faith based on politics and greed. By distancing ourselves from that specific message, we are indeed staying true to our message, our form and our faith.

Are we supposed to jump in the mud pits with them? Are we supposed to allow ourselves to be guilty of the same sins simply to combat theirs?

[hyphenate]

11. I try to contain my

derision under the acronym "RRR" for radical religious right, or fundie for short. Occasionally, I will make it RR (for religious right) but there is some other group with "RR" so I try to make it a trio of Rs.

[LanternWaste]

14. If one simply illustrates respect and civility..

If one simply illustrates respect and civility for whatever audience will have access to the soliloquy, everything else falls into place, and there is no need to be concerned with PC/offensive language and generalizations.

[CBGLuthier]

17. the key word is "some"

If people would just type that simple four letter word then generalisations would vanish.

Examples follow:

Some atheists are arrogant jerks.

Some christians are intolerant.

Some straight people are homophobic.

Some white people are racist bigots.



And if that is too much effort for SOME people to make then they must expect SOME other people to take exception.

[dmallind]

20. But that says very little

However there should be an efficient way to express that people who have characterstic or behavior X are almost always, or even always, of a specific group.

"Believers smugly heap scorn and derision on atheists while pretending to be victims" is a perfectly accurate and valid sentence. Not because ALL believers do this but because ALL the people who do this are believers.

Part of the problem is the perennially offended seem to never take into account the fact that A=B means B=A is a fallacy. The fact that everyone who scorns atheists while pretending to be a victim is a believer does not mean all believers do this, and there should be no requirement for someone who uses the former argument to explain this basic truth every time they make a statement in that form. That would be like saying that if you say 2+2=4 you have to add "unless you work in base 3". It is so obvious it should not need to be said.

The original poster is correct - if he says "I have been oppressed by Xians" he is not saying one thing that even implicitly includes the suggestion that all Xians are oppressing him - only that the ones who are oppressing him are Xians.

[CBGLuthier]

24. That may be valid

But then so are those who then point out that not all exhibit that behavior.

The problem is in denying the conversational nature of these forum postings.

All I am advocating is to preemptively qualify statements or just get used to people pointing out that not all have that behavior.

Semantic logic is really pointless on the internet. Complaining about other postings that follow these postings is also useless.

[MedleyMisty]

22. I think it's semantics

Okay, the group that I belong to that gets bashed on liberal forums a lot is Southerners.

I'd prefer people to just specify a bit more which Southerners they're talking about. There's a lot of us, and we're not all rich or white or Christian or Republican or Nascar fans or current country pop fans.

Either that or use the word "some", as suggested earlier.

Plus although I haven't seen any really bad examples on this forum, on other liberal forums it can get really nasty and really insulting, far beyond just venting or whatever and into really disturbing hate.

[The Straight Story]

23. So if I say 'gays' or 'women' or 'blacks' ..etc..and follow that by something negative

folks would understand it meant only a subgroup who are doing X or will I be labeled a homophobe, sexist, racist?

I recall a thread I posted about an atheist who removed some crosses out in front of his yard placed there by someone who had lost a loved one in a crash. I just simply posted the news article, but it seemed to set off a firestorm 'all atheists aren't like this' etc and so on.

It is natural for someone to become a bit defensive when someone says something about them via attacking a group they belong to.

You could ask yourself, if I start posting negative stories on a regular basis about atheists, will you feel the need to clarify or just let it roll? The perceived danger is that by allowing people to paint a group in a broad brush with negative items is that over time they will start seeing the majority that way.