Robert George: The Days of Being a Socially Acceptable Christian Are Over

  • Thread starter Thread starter Expatreprocedit
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Solmyr said:
This might come as a surprise to you, but the members of the KKK were / are all Christians. Not Catholics, of course. But it is their dearly held moral conviction that black are inferior. Moreover, they can quote the bible to support it. 🙂
Westboro Baptists call themselves Christians, too. Doesn’t make them actually, well, Christ-like, which is, after all, the intent of the word. It means those who follow Christ.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Tablefor9 said:
Westboro Baptists call themselves Christians, too. Doesn’t make them actually, well, Christ-like, which is, after all, the intent of the word. It means those who follow Christ.
Click to expand...
In other threads I have seen similar ideas concerning what is and what is not.

Just because one identifies themselves as something does not mean they are.
If Christianity were a crime, would there be sufficient evidence for a conviction?

People often cling to the label 'Christian ’ even though they are anything but.
 
Solmyr said:
I don’t see a sign of discrimination. Of course I talk about the US here. I never heard of an instance when orthodox Christians were the targets of some violent behavior, when they were prevented from freely professing their faith.
Click to expand...
Generally I would say this is true. Christians largely aren’t concerned with violence in the US (barring some very specific situations where mass shooters have allegedly targeted Christians during their rampage). I would also say that this could also be said of LGBTQ+ individuals, women, and most minorities. If this is the bar for discrimination then Christians fail to meet it, but neither do most other discriminated groups.

The reason that Christians are increasingly attempting to claim victim status is that victim status grants power, the types of events that constitute “discrimination” in our modern conversations apply just as well to Christians as they do to other often frequently discriminated groups. There are many orthodox Christians who feel considerable anxiety about revealing their faith to those around them. There are many Christians who are concerned that the knowledge of their faith will lead to difficulty finding jobs, widespread social rejection and even insult and emotional verbal abuse. There are concerns that, increasingly, to participate in the public sphere requires Christians to repudiate the beliefs of historical Christianity. There are concerns about the ability to raise children in accordance with their beliefs and values.

Are these concerns inflated? Maybe. Do they rise to violence, or the level of difficulty faced by Christians in Africa and Asia? Absolutely not. But neither are these concerns inconsequential. Speaking as a practicing Catholic, there’s a definite feeling of being a stranger in a strange land. There’s a feeling of not being welcome here. And I would submit to you that if this feeling was consistently expressed by any religion, sexual orientation, race, culture, or creed, most the progressive elements of society who most frequently engage in conversations about discrimination wouldn’t hesitate to grant that title.

So I guess the question I would have for you is this: I’m perfectly willing to see how you might fail to see how discrimination applies to Western Christianity, but are you willing to admit that by most “progressive” standards, the experience of hostility and alienation felt by many orthodox Christians would be cause for concern and even alarm?
 
đź‘Ť
mikekle said:
Look how that turned out even when the voters spoke their mind, with the Prop 8 in CA, it was voted down, but was overturned…now, tell me how the people are in charge, or that voting mattered in the end? LOL
Click to expand...
 
MacBP said:
The reason that Christians are increasingly attempting to claim victim status is that victim status grants power, the types of events that constitute “discrimination” in our modern conversations apply just as well to Christians as they do to other often frequently discriminated groups. There are many orthodox Christians who feel considerable anxiety about revealing their faith to those around them. There are many Christians who are concerned that the knowledge of their faith will lead to difficulty finding jobs, widespread social rejection and even insult and emotional verbal abuse. There are concerns that, increasingly, to participate in the public sphere requires Christians to repudiate the beliefs of historical Christianity. There are concerns about the ability to raise children in accordance with their beliefs and values.
Click to expand...
I see that sometimes you speak of “generic” Christians and sometimes of “orthodox” Christians. I have never seen even the mildest form of discrimination against self-proclaimed Christians. And I am an old guy who had several jobs in varied areas. Now, I never felt any discrimination when I came out and admitted that I am an atheist. Some disbelief, yes. How can a nice guy like you be an atheist? was the usual question. Some very serious concern for my “eternal” fate: “But you will go to hell!” was the reaction. But no negative reaction. None whatsoever. And I live in the Bible belt, and we all know what that means.

It happened only a few years ago that the South Carolina state constitution was amended to allow atheists even to run for public office. Prior to that they did even not qualify for the position of “notary public”. But what chance would a self-proclaimed atheist have if he chose to run for the office of the governor? Slim-to-none would be an overstatement. 🙂 Snowball’s chance in hell?

Now when you speak of ultra-orthodox, super-right-wing, to-the-right-from-the-Pope kind of Catholics, there might be some resentment toward them… though, personally I see none. Look at the Republican candidates… they proudly wear the “very conservative” label on their “chest”. And they fight among themselves, who is the “real” conservative.
MacBP said:
So I guess the question I would have for you is this: I’m perfectly willing to see how you might fail to see how discrimination applies to Western Christianity, but are you willing to admit that by most “progressive” standards, the experience of hostility and alienation felt by many orthodox Christians would be cause for concern and even alarm?
Click to expand...
Sorry, I see no such discrimination. Could be my fault, of course. But in a country, where over 80% of the population is self-professed Christian, it seems very unlikely that there is any discrimination happening on any sizable scale - against the Christians in general.

Now, if you refer to the disagreement about the gay marriages, the hullabaloo about the “bakery issue”, then you have a point. The ultra-conservatives are not tolerated real well, but it is not the atheists who “persecute” them; it is their “librul” Christian brethren. A very sizable percentage of the Catholics disagrees with the Vatican when it comes to abortion, to birth control, to the ordination of women and some more issues.

But don’t blame the largely apathetic population for it. 🙂
 
Why do you guys feel oppressed? Christians aren’t more susceptible to poverty, aren’t more likely to get long prison sentences for minor crimes, aren’t more likely to get shot by the police, etc. Just because you feel that pinkos don’t like your beliefs doesn’t mean that you’re oppressed. I can’t believe the comparisons people in this thread are making to minority groups that genuinely do suffer disproportionately from various problems.
 
Regular_Atheist said:
Why do you guys feel oppressed? Christians aren’t more susceptible to poverty, aren’t more likely to get long prison sentences for minor crimes, aren’t more likely to get shot by the police, etc. Just because you feel that pinkos don’t like your beliefs doesn’t mean that you’re oppressed. I can’t believe the comparisons people in this thread are making to minority groups that genuinely do suffer disproportionately from various problems.
Click to expand...
Yes, of course, there are minority groups that do suffer disproportionately from various problems, but I would contend that those who “genuinely” do suffer are not the ones who tend to be vocal about their suffering. If they “genuinely” suffer, they remain quite silent about it precisely BECAUSE they do disproportionately suffer. The vocal ones, who harp on about their “suffering” continue to be vocal about it to the degree that they are NOT oppressed. Real oppression would have silenced them many moons ago.

When pampered university students begin taking on the banner of “oppression” and claim every slight, every microaggression, against them is beyond intolerable, it is clear that “disproportionately” has lost all of its meaning.

When a gay couple sues a bakery and wins an award of $136 000 and puts the bakers out of business simply because they refused to provide a “gay” wedding cake in a state where gay “weddings” weren’t even legal, that, too, is a sign that “suffering disproportionately” is a vacuous term in this instance.

If you want to find “genuine oppression,” I wouldn’t be looking to what the headlines in major newspapers are trumpeting as “oppression.” Nor would I look to the loud, proud and unabashed. Perhaps the silent, cowering and fearful, would be a better indicator of “genuine” oppression.
 
I guess in the sense of being a Christian who holds more traditional or orthodox viewpoints on social issues, then yes, it’s not quite socially acceptable in this day and age.
 
Solmyr said:
Sorry, I see no such discrimination. Could be my fault, of course. But in a country, where over 80% of the population is self-professed Christian, it seems very unlikely that there is any discrimination happening on any sizable scale - against the Christians in general.
Click to expand...
Ah, yes, the way in which to determine whether a proposition such as “I am a Christian” is true is merely to take it at face. A “Christian” is merely one who “self-professes” to be one.

It is amazing how you adamantly require stringent and vetted “evidence” before accepting some claims and then turn around and decide the truth of other claims purely on the basis of someone making a claim that such is the case. Your inconsistency is, again, showing.

If to be a “Christian” merely means “whatever one declares it to mean,” then the word is semantically empty.

To be a Christian means to be a follower of Christ BECAUSE the professed follower has determined that Jesus’ claims about himself were determinably true. Principal among those claims is that he is God. For that reason, every claim, every teaching, of his are understood by true followers of Christ to have significance far beyond the teachings and claims of every other person in history.

It is very easy to use the teachings of Christ to sort kernel Christians from chaff.

For example, Christ alluded to the existence of Satan, whom he called the “Father of Lies.” Someone who denies or otherwise explains away the existence of the evil one is no longer “following” Jesus on this point and to that extent no longer being a “Christian.”

Jesus declared himself, in numerous ways, to be God. Anyone who denies THAT is no longer “following” Jesus on that point and, therefore, no longer Christian to the degree they deny the truth of it.

Now, it may be debatable at what point precisely, one ceases to be “Christian” to the significant degree that one is no longer Christian at all, but what is not debatable is to tether the very meaning of the word “Christian” to mere self-designation. A person is NOT Christian merely because they make a claim to be.

This is one of the problems with epistemological relativism, which you seem to be ready to espouse to treat some issues or questions but disparage for others. If the meanings of words and realities are turned over to whatever anyone wants them to mean, proper discussion of topics and ideas becomes impossible. For meaningful discourse to occur, the meanings of terms have to be determined beforehand and not left to the whims of whoever wants to make whatever claim they choose.

Sure, you are content to permit the meaning of the word “Christian” to deteriorate into oblivion, but that would seem to be because you are ready to dismiss what it means to be Christian completely. In other words, you have already discriminated against what it means to be genuinely Christian by your atheistic predilections to give Christianity short shrift.
 
One might also add that the percentage of Christians in America has dropped down to about 70%.
 
Peter_Plato said:
Ah, yes, the way in which to determine whether a proposition such as “I am a Christian” is true is merely to take it at face. A “Christian” is merely one who “self-professes” to be one.
Click to expand...
What else is there? I don’t have the insight into their mind… do you? If you say that they don’t “behave” like REAL Christians, then YOU impose YOUR criterion on them, by declaring that “this” is how REAL Christians behave… a typical “No true Scotsman fallacy”. I am sure that in their own eyes they are REAL Christians.

There are the orthodox Christians who see the heterodox Christians as not-REAL Christians, and probably vice-versa. You know what? It is all subjective. Or you can grab your swords and fight it out among yourselves. You know… like the REAL gladiators. And let the last man “win”.

I don’t think that an atheist or a Muslim would declare themselves “Christian”. So to accept one’s own categorization sounds pretty reasonable.
 
Solmyr said:
What else is there? I don’t have the insight into their mind… do you? If you say that they don’t “behave” like REAL Christians, then YOU impose YOUR criterion on them, by declaring that “this” is how REAL Christians behave… a typical “No true Scotsman fallacy”. I am sure that in their own eyes they are REAL Christians.

There are the orthodox Christians who see the heterodox Christians as not-REAL Christians, and probably vice-versa. You know what? It is all subjective. Or you can grab your swords and fight it out among yourselves. You know… like the REAL gladiators. And let the last man “win”.

I don’t think that an atheist or a Muslim would declare themselves “Christian”. So to accept one’s own categorization sounds pretty reasonable.
Click to expand...
How about adherence to basic Christian principles? The sanctity of human life, a basic understanding of sin, an acceptance of the teaching and mission of Jesus Christ.

Would you have difficulty identifying the basic principles of Christianity and who is more “Christian” in the following situation?

stream.org/pro-abortion-staffer-purdue-calls-rape-pro-life-students/

I mean, would you deny that words and actions have anything to do with actually being “Christian” and simply resort to whomever self-identifies as “Christian” as the determiner?

You see nothing wrong with that?
 
Solmyr said:
I don’t think that an atheist or a Muslim would declare themselves “Christian”. So to accept one’s own categorization sounds pretty reasonable.
Click to expand...
So by your theory, the justice system should incarcerate and judge the guilt of those who confess to crimes simply on that basis – i.e., because an innocent person would never confess to a crime or declare themselves guilty, ergo it is “reasonable” to presume guilt?

Whatever happened to the requirement for “evidence” to determine the truth of things?
I assumed when you made that claim that you really didn’t mean it, and now it appears to be true that you weren’t very serious since “evidence” doesn’t mean very much within your larger narrative. It matters when it supports your position but loses all value when it doesn’t.
Again, consistency.
 
Expatreprocedit said:
Uh, no. Your ignorance is showing.
Click to expand...
For most of American history the position that blacks were inferior was considered the biblical position. Those that used the bible to support slavery, and then later Jim Crow, may have been wrong, but it is certainly true that they did so and that most American Christians agreed with them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top