The danger of White Evangelical Christians in the US

[Politesse]

Religious believers who aren't right wing morons are actually, at best, irrelevant to solving any problems of religion, and at worst, they are complicit for reasons that have nothing to do with them personally doing harm to others but to social dynamics of the "Christian" identity. It doesn't matter that none of them support right wing nut bags or even speak out against them. The sheer numbers of the Christian identity group and its influence over society is what gives extremists power.

It's a social club and an identity group that has power over those who do not identify as Christian, regardless of how many Christians are nice and peaceful, or educated, or liberal. It has nothing to do with any god or god belief. Don't believe me? Just ask a Christian if a label is god, and they'll say "Of course not." Then ask them to help take power away from extremists by giving up their social label. Obviously, that label isn't the source of their faith or belief, but IS a source of religious power over society. Yet they won't do it. They will not do it. No Christian will every say, "I refuse to call myself a Christian" unless it's someone who is truly denouncing the belief system. No one will give up that label and NOT feel like they are giving up the faith.

That label is a powerful social dynamic, but it is worshipped as if it were God. Seems obvious when we talk about it like this, but again, just test it out. Christians worship the social power and self image that come with the label. The power of numbers and the privilege that comes with that label is really what people refuse to give up. And we have generation upon generation of indoctrination to assist us in never questioning this.

The fact that the numerical majority of atheists are subject to the whim of their fascist, communistic governments, on the other hand, does not make American atheists coimplicit in the crimes commited "by their label". Only Christians and Muslims (and Jews? Are you brave enoiugh to say that one out loud?) should be judged by the worst excesses of some variants of their kind because... you're trying to horn in on the bigotry business, I guess.

For the record, no, being described with the same label as someone else is not "supporting" them. Supporting them is supporting them. If you cannot see past the label that gets applied to a person, you have no business chiding anyone for blind prejudice, you yourself are exhibit A. As a wise man once said, sometimes it is best to look after the log in your own eye before going after the speck in your neighbor's.

Also, I know plenty of people who hold more or less Christian beliefs, or something proximate to them, but don't like the label Christian, so I really don't think you know what you're talking about. At least half of the ceremonial magicians I've known, for instance, and a solid majority of Satanists, and that's just people who've chosen a different label. A growing number of people, those whom sociologists nickname "the nones", choose no faith label at all, but exhibit enormous diversity when it comes to their actual beliefs and practices.

 

[Angry Floof]

It's really hard, if not impossible, to even broach the subject without religious believers and apologists taking it personally, and yet the whole point I'm making is that it is not at all personal.

Everyone's individual choices and actions contribute to something larger than those individuals, and that something larger, the emergent phenomena, are not personal to any of us. They're not even visible to most people, much less controlled by individual choices. No one's in charge of the phenomena. No one's running the show or purposely making decisions about how myriad individual choices and attitudes arise among thousands or millions of people into society wide attitudes or consequences.

It's just not personal. No one has to feel bad about their choices, but hopefully more people will care enough about people they don't know and about things that don't affect them personally to be inspired to set aside the personal and be willing to change their minds about something, knowing that it all accumulates and gives rise to things that affect others. We all contribute to the society we live in, and everyone has the capacity to clean up their own mess, so to speak, because others have to live in this mess, too, and it may not be as humane to them as it is to you.

 

[Politesse]

It's really hard, if not impossible, to even broach the subject without religious believers and apologists taking it personally, and yet the whole point I'm making is that it is not at all personal.

If you calling out innocent people and demanding that they share the blame for acts they didn't commit is you "trying not to make it personal", you are incredibly bad at not making things personal. No matter how much lipstick you try to put on the pig, bigotry is bigotry, and you should not be proud of it. Blanket insults about millions of people you know little about, based on your personal experiences of some social label or another, are going to stink whether you are "well intentioned" or not.

Do you really think you're going to convert people to your worldview by calling them stupid and then lying about what they do or do not endorse? What rational person would decide to change their philosophical perspective because someone else falsely accused them of something, or in response to a rhetorical argument that betrays how little the speaker actually knows about the subject? Lies, accusations, recriminations, rage: these are the tools of the Dark Side, and only to the Dark Side can they lead. Indeed, that sort of behavior is what makes religion turn ugly in the first place.

A lot of people in this thread have claimed that they have no problem with religious people as long as they mind their own business and don't tell others what to do or think. But even in this thread, there is ample evidence that you cannot end that behavior by leaving religion behind. Bigotry and hypocrisy belong to all of us, and some of us, regardless of label, try curb that behavior for the good of themselves and their neighbors. Others, regardless of label, actually revel in it, and think they are some sort of social activist, to be applauded for their good work in challenging the fools who live next door.

 

[Angry Floof]

*sigh* Once again, not blaming, not personal.

Yes, sometimes groups or individuals actually do things that cause harm and should be held accountable. By all means do that. All I'm talking about is maybe let's encourage people to take a broader view, think about people we don't know and recognize they are part of our tribe, care about things that don't affect us directly. Maybe encourage a more enlightened perspective. Maybe recognize that our personal group identities are not the most important thing in the world, certainly not as important as our "human" identity group. Maybe encourage self reflection and questioning. Maybe recognize that no matter how much you love and identify with your religion, that your religion may well be a huge obstacle to any of this...

Also, kind of ironically in this conversation, religion itself is that exact type of emergent phenomenon I mentioned.

 

[Brian63]

A lot of people in this thread have claimed that they have no problem with religious people as long as they mind their own business and don't tell others what to do or think.

That is not how the real world works. The beliefs of other people affect themselves, affect you, affect me, affect others around us and affect future generations.

That is worth repeating:

The beliefs of other people affect themselves, affect you, affect me, affect others around us and affect future generations.

It *cannot* be that the beliefs that swirl inside the brains of people have no impact on anyone else. So the entire foundation of this scenario is false right at the start. It should be tossed aside right at that moment.

If you want to improve how humans behave, think, feel, and act, and what happens to each of us---you should be interested also in what people believe. Why instead should a person be so apathetic about it? It is naive to think peoples' beliefs impact only themselves, and it is simultaneously disgusting to think that if that was the case that we care so little about how much damage those religious beliefs are doing to themselves, even if they are unaware of it.

 

[Politesse]

It *cannot* be that the beliefs that swirl inside the brains of people have no impact on anyone else. So the entire foundation of this scenario is false right at the start. It should be tossed aside right at that moment.

I quite agree.

 

[Politesse]

*sigh* Once again, not blaming, not personal.

Yes, sometimes groups or individuals actually do things that cause harm and should be held accountable. By all means do that. All I'm talking about is maybe let's encourage people to take a broader view, think about people we don't know and recognize they are part of our tribe, care about things that don't affect us directly. Maybe encourage a more enlightened perspective. Maybe recognize that our personal group identities are not the most important thing in the world, certainly not as important as our "human" identity group. Maybe encourage self reflection and questioning. Maybe recognize that no matter how much you love and identify with your religion, that your religion may well be a huge obstacle to any of this...

Also, kind of ironically in this conversation, religion itself is that exact type of emergent phenomenon I mentioned.

But if you only encounter traditions other than your own as a bundle of pejorative labels and assumptions, do you really think you are modeling any of the ideals you claim to hold? You can't enjoin us to take a broader view of the fundamental beauty of humanity beyond labels, while also describing most of humanity as dangerous morons for having a different label than you. At least, not without looking a bit foolish.

 

[Ruth Harris]

*sigh* Once again, not blaming, not personal.

Yes, sometimes groups or individuals actually do things that cause harm and should be held accountable. By all means do that. All I'm talking about is maybe let's encourage people to take a broader view, think about people we don't know and recognize they are part of our tribe, care about things that don't affect us directly. Maybe encourage a more enlightened perspective. Maybe recognize that our personal group identities are not the most important thing in the world, certainly not as important as our "human" identity group. Maybe encourage self reflection and questioning. Maybe recognize that no matter how much you love and identify with your religion, that your religion may well be a huge obstacle to any of this...

Also, kind of ironically in this conversation, religion itself is that exact type of emergent phenomenon I mentioned.

Correct me if I am wrong, but this sounds like you are saying that ALL group identities other than being a member of the human race are damaging. Your emphasis on labels, added to that, means that you take the view that no one should self identify as anything other than human to prevent social obstacles or “groupthink” from occurring.

If so, I could not disagree more. This would come dangerously close to mandating a world where there were no individuals – just a single society with a single worldview. I am not a “one world government” paranoid, but if that is what you are proposing it sure seems like this is what you want – and I don’t want any part of it.

Members of different identity groups do not walk in lockstep; this is your first error. There will always be the same spread of individuals in each group who range from completely self centered to those who always put others first even when it causes personal harm for no good reason. Both extremes are wrong in my opinion.

You seem to think that groups are responsible for the individuals in them who believe and act outside the majority. That is also incorrect; it comes under the individual choices each person makes and should not be attributed to the group unless that is actually what they promote (like the KKK or Westboro Baptist Church).

And as usual, it comes down to religion. You are perfectly entitled to have your opinion on my faith, but saying that religion as a whole causes an emergent phenomenon which incites harm to others is just plain wrong. You don’t see me saying that atheism gives rise to an emergent phenomenon of mistreatment of all believers, do you? That is because it is not the truth. You cannot blame a group for individuals within the group; they are there freely and of their own choice, and their actions are also done freely and of their own choice. There are exceptions, of course, like the KKK who promote discrimination and even harm to non-white races, but the individuals who joined them already had that personal mindset.

As an individual, I care deeply about the well being of others. I am concerned about the condition of our world. It hurts me when I inadvertently injure someone’s feelings. I speak up when other people in my group say or do things that are hurtful or harmful to people outside the group. If anything, my faith has deepened my concern and care for others. And I am far from alone in this. Please don’t treat us like brainwashed idiots who need to be firmly instructed on how to live in an interconnected world just because you personally do not like religion.

Ruth

 

[Brian63]

You can't enjoin us to take a broader view of the fundamental beauty of humanity...

"Fundamental beauty of humanity"? Why assume there is such a thing, anymore than a "fundamental ugliness of humanity"? We should strive to look at humanity as it is, rather than how we want it to be. If people self-identify and practice under a particular religious group, that says at least *something* about them, and we can make generalities in those cases. If we dislike the conclusions we reach, that does not make those conclusions any less accurate.

 

[Brian63]

Your emphasis on labels, added to that, means that you take the view that no one should self identify as anything other than human to prevent social obstacles or “groupthink” from occurring.

Not Angry Floof here, but that was not my take at all. My impression is that people can self-identify as members of a wide combination of a near limitless number of labels. You can be an alcoholic Taoist, depressed Muslim who is a bibliophile, a blonde-haired (by dying your hair) schoolyard bully, etc., etc., etc.

Applying labels to people is not wrong. It is a convenient and helpful way to identify what traits they are likely to have. Does it absolutely define everything about you? No. Did Angry Floof ever say that it did? Not that I recall. Still, generalities are useful. If we cannot use generalities and we cannot use self-labels to draw some picture of what a person believes, and such things are useful, then why do people even self-identify as anything ever and why do they ever make generalities? Can we only speak when 100% of all self-identified members of a group come to unanimous consent on a given issue? That is not going to happen. But it is still helpful to draw general conclusions. And we should not have to throw in a million caveats and qualifying statements every time it is done. Readers should take on some responsibility to understand better that general statements are being made that may apply to some more than others, it does not suggest the same about every single member.

 

[Angry Floof]

*sigh* Once again, not blaming, not personal.

Yes, sometimes groups or individuals actually do things that cause harm and should be held accountable. By all means do that. All I'm talking about is maybe let's encourage people to take a broader view, think about people we don't know and recognize they are part of our tribe, care about things that don't affect us directly. Maybe encourage a more enlightened perspective. Maybe recognize that our personal group identities are not the most important thing in the world, certainly not as important as our "human" identity group. Maybe encourage self reflection and questioning. Maybe recognize that no matter how much you love and identify with your religion, that your religion may well be a huge obstacle to any of this...

Also, kind of ironically in this conversation, religion itself is that exact type of emergent phenomenon I mentioned.

Correct me if I am wrong, but this sounds like you are saying that ALL group identities other than being a member of the human race are damaging.

You're wrong.

Your emphasis on labels, added to that, means that you take the view that no one should self identify as anything other than human to prevent social obstacles or “groupthink” from occurring.

Nope, didn't say that. I'm talking about the fact that group identity plays, or can play, a major role in our world view, perceptions, assumptions, and how we process information.

If so, I could not disagree more. This would come dangerously close to mandating a world where there were no individuals – just a single society with a single worldview. I am not a “one world government” paranoid, but if that is what you are proposing it sure seems like this is what you want – and I don’t want any part of it.

Holy crap, that's a lot of paranoia to pull out of your ass with zero basis in anything I've said.

Members of different identity groups do not walk in lockstep; this is your first error. There will always be the same spread of individuals in each group who range from completely self centered to those who always put others first even when it causes personal harm for no good reason. Both extremes are wrong in my opinion.

Nope, didn't say anything about lockstep or anything extreme. But it's not surprising that even the suggestion of thinking about something differently would trigger such a response.

I didn't bother responding to the rest because none of it follows anything I actually said.

 

[Ruth Harris]

You're wrong.

Your emphasis on labels, added to that, means that you take the view that no one should self identify as anything other than human to prevent social obstacles or “groupthink” from occurring.

Nope, didn't say that. I'm talking about the fact that group identity plays, or can play, a major role in our world view, perceptions, assumptions, and how we process information.

If so, I could not disagree more. This would come dangerously close to mandating a world where there were no individuals – just a single society with a single worldview. I am not a “one world government” paranoid, but if that is what you are proposing it sure seems like this is what you want – and I don’t want any part of it.

Holy crap, that's a lot of paranoia to pull out of your ass with zero basis in anything I've said.

Members of different identity groups do not walk in lockstep; this is your first error. There will always be the same spread of individuals in each group who range from completely self centered to those who always put others first even when it causes personal harm for no good reason. Both extremes are wrong in my opinion.

Nope, didn't say anything about lockstep or anything extreme. But it's not surprising that even the suggestion of thinking about something differently would trigger such a response.

I didn't bother responding to the rest because none of it follows anything I actually said.

Then you need to explain this. The first part is not specific to any group which is where I got the idea that you thought groups and their labels of any kind were bad:

My post wasn't about judging individuals. It's about the social power of the group identity label...

And then you go on to relate it to only religion, calling it a "poisonous, inhumane force":

...Christianity's social power runs deep and wide in Western history, in all Western countries and some others as well.

If you knew that you were inadvertently part of a poisonous, inhumane force across society, would you purposely choose to continue contributing to that? Most people would not, but most people also would not really understand that or care to try to understand it as long as it doesn't affect them personally, as long as their complicity doesn't hurt them in any way, and as long as their narrative survives challenges.

And it is nearly impossible to expect change in minds any time soon because any criticism is likely to be taken personally (even when it's not) and can be excused away by centuries of indoctrinated defenses and arguments...

And here you say that the most important part to believers is that we have POWER by calling ourselves Christian. Wrong, wrong, wrong... Should white people not identify as white because that gives them power according to our history? You also specifically mentioned extremists here. Should liberals not identify themselves as liberal because that might include some violent extremists?

...It's a social club and an identity group that has power over those who do not identify as Christian, regardless of how many Christians are nice and peaceful, or educated, or liberal. It has nothing to do with any god or god belief. Don't believe me? Just ask a Christian if a label is god, and they'll say "Of course not." Then ask them to help take power away from extremists by giving up their social label. Obviously, that label isn't the source of their faith or belief, but IS a source of religious power over society. Yet they won't do it. They will not do it. No Christian will every say, "I refuse to call myself a Christian" unless it's someone who is truly denouncing the belief system. No one will give up that label and NOT feel like they are giving up the faith.

That label is a powerful social dynamic, but it is worshipped as if it were God. Seems obvious when we talk about it like this, but again, just test it out. Christians worship the social power and self image that come with the label. The power of numbers and the privilege that comes with that label is really what people refuse to give up. And we have generation upon generation of indoctrination to assist us in never questioning this.

So what precisely are you saying? Are only religious groups a bad thing? Or just groups that don't agree with your viewpoint? I really want to know.

Ruth

 

[Angry Floof]

Thinking your group identity is more fundamental or more important than your identity as a human is the basis of us vs. them tribalism. No one said that's always bad. That's preposterous. Every human being forms multiple group identities. For example, my Americanness doesn't make me nationalist or xenophobic in my world view. But if someone else's Americanness becomes their most important and fundamental identity, they will view other people's identities as inferior. Within a larger, relatively peaceful and prosperous society, this nationalist view of oneself may not arise into anything significant in the culture, but unexamined, that identity embedded in that person's sense of self could easily make them susceptible to nationalist propaganda, or right wing propaganda, or any shade of America vs whoever ideology.

When ideological identity is widespread, yes, it has power. The U.S. is founded in secular, democratic values, not Christian ones as fanatics like to falsely claim, but Christianity lives deep in the substrate of our culture from the first explorers and colonists. Aspects of Christian thought and belief are ground deep into our culture and collective conscious. Again, authority worship, us vs. them framework, punish questioning and doubt, abusive father figure social and family structure, insistence on conformity, non-conformity is the downfall of civilization, willingness to harm or support harming out groups... etc., etc. Not in respect for autonomy or intellectual honesty or pluralism or curiosity or pacifism or any number of values and tenets that could possibly mitigate the more toxic aspects of Christian world view. If only those values were the ones to run so deep in our history and culture. If only.

Edit: And none of this, for me, is my most fundamental identity. I express things I believe in, but there is no authority telling me what to believe and then me using my executive functions to justify that after the fact because it's uncomfortable to feel wrong about my beliefs and therefore my identity.

I will say that I used to operate something like that by default when I was young, although never fanatically. But given the suggestion and the chance to question every assumption I had about the world, I started doing exactly that. Thank goodness my religious identity wasn't as important to me as knowing and learning, and ironically at the suggestion of a Christian apologist, making the conscious decision to follow the truth and the evidence no matter how uncomfortable it might feel. Not having a strong community of indoctrination or anyone shaming me or policing my thoughts, it was probably easier for me than some to let go of assumptions that I never made consciously but more by subconscious osmosis and some level of early childhood indoctrination due to not having that kind of fanatical or reinforcing community around me. I had Christians around, but my world was more diverse as I got older and didn't go to church anymore.

So yeah, I'm American. I'm a humanist, if you want to give me a label that reflects my views, that one works. But neither of these things are magically important. They're just human constructs, sometimes useful for practical reasons or communication reasons, but they are not my fundamental humanness or value or worth or definition. "Atheist" doesn't even describe me accurately until the topic of religion comes up. When not talking about religion, "atheist" is meaningless to my fundamental sense of self as a human being.

 

[Ruth Harris]

Thinking your group identity is more fundamental or more important than your identity as a human is the basis of us vs. them tribalism. No one said that's always bad. That's preposterous. Every human being forms multiple group identities. For example, my Americanness doesn't make me nationalist or xenophobic in my world view. But if someone else's Americanness becomes their most important and fundamental identity, they will view other people's identities as inferior. Within a larger, relatively peaceful and prosperous society, this nationalist view of oneself may not arise into anything significant in the culture, but unexamined, that identity embedded in that person's sense of self could easily make them susceptible to nationalist propaganda, or right wing propaganda, or any shade of America vs whoever ideology.

When ideological identity is widespread, yes, it has power. The U.S. is founded in secular, democratic values, not Christian ones as fanatics like to falsely claim, but Christianity lives deep in the substrate of our culture from the first explorers and colonists. Aspects of Christian thought and belief are ground deep into our culture and collective conscious. Again, authority worship, us vs. them framework, punish questioning and doubt, abusive father figure social and family structure, insistence on conformity, non-conformity is the downfall of civilization, willingness to harm or support harming out groups... etc., etc. Not in respect for autonomy or intellectual honesty or pluralism or curiosity or pacifism or any number of values and tenets that could possibly mitigate the more toxic aspects of Christian world view.

“Thinking your group identity is more fundamental or more important than your identity as a human”

That strikes me as a strawman fallacy. No one thinks about or describes themselves as a human first. That is a given, since we live in a society composed of humans. I don’t know of anyone who would actually argue that their group identity displaced their identity of being human.

When I am describing myself to another person, typically the first thing I will say is that I am a Christian. Why shouldn’t I? I am a Christian, and I do consider that the most important thing they need to know about me. The label itself means only what it is intended to include – that I believe in the incarnation, life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. It has nothing to do with status or power or anything related to that. Would I reject that label because some extremists also used it? No. It is who I am. And I have to say this is the first time I have ever run into anyone who thought that the label itself had anything to do with power.

“But if someone else's Americanness becomes their most important and fundamental identity, they will view other people's identities as inferior.”

Not so sure about that. I know several people who take inordinate pride in being an American, but they don’t consider other nationalities to be inferior either. My experience includes some people who went through the nationalization process and being American is a matter of great pride for them even though they still love their home countries.

“Within a larger, relatively peaceful and prosperous society, this nationalist view of oneself may not arise into anything significant in the culture, but unexamined, that identity embedded in that person's sense of self could easily make them susceptible to nationalist propaganda, or right wing propaganda, or any shade of America vs whoever ideology.”

Again, you are portraying an individual’s personal choices as the result of group dynamics when that is not necessarily the case. An individual’s innate personality is going to influence them more heavily than external processes. So it depends on the individual’s basic inclinations as to whether or not they are swayed by outside ideologies. And I don’t know about you, but I am not favorably inclined to live in a society where nothing but “approved ideas” are allowed. I would rather live in our messy democracy.

I am not going to get into your view of Christianity since that argument has been made ad nauseam including in this thread. Nothing I say will change your mind so there is no point in going into a Bible thumping routine

Ruth

Edit: And you edited your post while I was replying to the original! The only response I have to your edits is that my faith journey was different than yours. I did not come to faith until I was an adult.

 

[Rhea]

Thinking your group identity is more fundamental or more important than your identity as a human is the basis of us vs. them tribalism.

“Thinking your group identity is more fundamental or more important than your identity as a human”

That strikes me as a strawman fallacy. No one thinks about or describes themselves as a human first. That is a given, since we live in a society composed of humans. I don’t know of anyone who would actually argue that their group identity displaced their identity of being human.


When I am describing myself to another person, typically the first thing I will say is that I am a Christian. Why shouldn’t I? I am a Christian, and I do consider that the most important thing they need to know about me.

I think you missed Floof’s whole point rather badly.

When you think of yourself as human first, you think of what you have in common with the person you meet..
But you think of yourself as Christian first, and so you “other” 2/3 of the people on the planet immediately when you introduce yourself.

Floof is asking, “isn’t that fundamentally divisive?” If you think of yourself as human first, then all humankind are your brothers and sisters. You aren’t drawing a line that can exclude.

I think you didn’t get that part of what she was saying. Looking at how you can connect instead of divide.
Your religion encourages you to divide by telling you it is important to state early in the encounter how you are different instead of the same.

 

[Ruth Harris]

Thinking your group identity is more fundamental or more important than your identity as a human is the basis of us vs. them tribalism.

“Thinking your group identity is more fundamental or more important than your identity as a human”

That strikes me as a strawman fallacy. No one thinks about or describes themselves as a human first. That is a given, since we live in a society composed of humans. I don’t know of anyone who would actually argue that their group identity displaced their identity of being human.


When I am describing myself to another person, typically the first thing I will say is that I am a Christian. Why shouldn’t I? I am a Christian, and I do consider that the most important thing they need to know about me.

I think you missed Floof’s whole point rather badly.

When you think of yourself as human first, you think of what you have in common with the person you meet..
But you think of yourself as Christian first, and so you “other” 2/3 of the people on the planet immediately when you introduce yourself.

Floof is asking, “isn’t that fundamentally divisive?” If you think of yourself as human first, then all humankind are your brothers and sisters. You aren’t drawing a line that can exclude.

I think you didn’t get that part of what she was saying. Looking at how you can connect instead of divide.
Your religion encourages you to divide by telling you it is important to state early in the encounter how you are different instead of the same.

Maybe so. But it still seems to me that we already know we are both members of the human race when we start the conversation - and I still don't know anyone who actually thinks that first of themselves, simply because it is a given for everyone. If Floof deliberately starts her conversation or thinks of her identity as human first, then that is definitely something I have not seen before. I don't know that it makes me want to do/think this instead of what I do/think now simply because we are both already aware of our common humanity.

My viewpoint, of course, is subject to change if the aliens ever do decide to come visit us And I don't mean that as a joke; I don't know of any reason there couldn't be alien life out there.

Ruth

Edit to add: I am not being deliberately obtuse here. I do realize that Rhea was pointing out that Floof might be intending to say that upon meeting, we should look for common ground rather than our differences. But we already know we are both humans and it seems rather redundant to actually think or say that.

But when you meet someone, you likely will try to find something in common with them if they interest you. And the easiest way to do that is to tell them who you are - honestly. If something is important to you but not to the other party it is unlikely that a further friendship would survive if you lie about it.

 

[Worldtraveller]

So did we ever get Tigers to respond with examples of sohy shoving her opinion down others' proverbial throats?

 

[Politesse]

When pigs fly, haha.

 

[southernhybrid]

So did we ever get Tigers to respond with examples of sohy shoving her opinion down others' proverbial throats?

I guess he hasn't figured out what it is that I'm trying to push down the throats of others. I haven't figured out what in the world he was referring to when he made that remark.

So, moving on, while I do respect the right of my atheist peers to disagree with me, I personally don't blame the more liberal Christians for the actions of the more extreme Christians. I've personally known two atheist Christians and I have no problem with that concept either. It's been a few years, but from what I remember, they both became atheists while being members of a Methodist church. They loved their church communities and they loved many of the more positive aspects of the Christian message, so they continued to be involved with their church communities and continued to label themselves as Christians. My own husband once did one of those charity drives with a local church. He grew up Catholic and became an atheist in his late teens, but doesn't see Christianity as something that is all negative. We both think of religious beliefs as myths, but that doesn't mean there can't be some value in the myths. Humans have an extremely long history of believing or supporting myths.

I sometimes refer to myself as a cherry picking secular humanist. I like most of the philosophical leanings of secular humanism, but the thought that the values of humanism will ever come to fruition is just another myth. We can still embrace a myth that helps us be better people or gives us some simple guidelines in regards to our personal morality. We can form or join communities of like minded people who might be willing to try and do something positive for their own communities without losing our personal identity. Speaking from personal experience, it's fun to get together with a group that shares many of your beliefs and values. Hopefully, once the pandemic is over, we can all do that again safely.

I'd be happy if there was a UU fellowship in my area, as I like many of the aspects of liberal religion, despite being an atheist. I've had atheist friends who were UUs, but all the UU fellowships are at least 50 miles from my home. Obviously, there's a lot of truth when people say that atheists are like cats and you can't herd cats. That's cool, as I don't think there should be an atheist dogma. That is another reason why I like the Unitarians. They don't embrace any specific dogma as any version of a liberal religion, including secular humanism is acceptable. They put more emphasis on caring for their communities than they do on specific beliefs. And, btw, the IRS considers secular humanism to be a religion. It's just a secular religion.

I live in the Deep South and of course, the culture here has been impacted by Christianity. Some of it is positive and some of it is negative. The positive things include food banks, free medical clinics, a source of community for those who need friends or emotional support, charity drives, etc. The huge Methodist church on the corner of my street even has a gym that is open to the public for a tiny fee. Prior to the pandemic, they had weight loss classes from what I've been told. They have had free classical music concerts, and probably some other things that I don't know. That is why I simply don't see Christianity as one identity. There are probably over 100 different sects of Christianity, and they don't all teach or emphasize the same things. Some take the Bible literally, while others take it allegorically.

To me, religion is a man made entity that like most human made entities, has both positive and negative impacts on society. Extremism is a problem, regardless if it comes from a secular ideology or a religious mythology. I seriously doubt we will change each other's minds, but I do think it's good to discuss such things as long as it can be done calmly and with respect.

There are plenty of people who I like that have very different opinions from my own. That's what makes life interesting.

 

[Tigers!]

So did we ever get Tigers to respond with examples of sohy shoving her opinion down others' proverbial throats?

Don't fret. I have not gone very far away. Just popped out for a smoko.
Being rather generic in my approach here.
"examples of sohy shoving her opinion down others' proverbial throats?"
I would assume that sohy is active in trying to get rules, regulations etc. changed to be better reflect how she would like the world, or theirs at least, ordered.
If another group of individuals (insert favourite opposition group here) then tries to reverse said changes or change others the cry goes up " you are shoving your opinion down our throats". Forgetting of course that they are guilty of same said crime.
The double standard is quite tiresome - we (sohy and any other groups) are allowed to make changes but I (insert favourite opposition group here) are not.