Isn't the phrase "anti-Christian bigotry"

basically just a rightwing buzz phrase created to perpetuate misogyny and homophobia?

Since Christians have quasi-institutional privilege in our country, isn't the phrase "anti-Christian bigot" just tossed at people to silence criticism of rightwing Christians who seek to maintain a kind of political and cultural hegemony here in the US?

I yam the spawn of two "Christian" parents. But neither of them would dream of ever employing the phrase "anti Christian bigot" to try to silence someone, because they both understand that fundamentalist Christianity is used in this country (and elsewhere) to lend succor and support to bigots.

On of those 'sauce for the goose" things....

not a phrase one would expect to drop from the pen of a liberal.

There are a hell of a lot of us progressive, Democratic-voting Christians who are tarred by same brush here...and, yes, those who do the tarring are anti-Christian bigots, IMHO.

I can think of many examples, but none more telling that that of Bill Gallant, who was the progressive voice on radio in Seattle (and, before that, in Boston and several other cities) in the days before Air America, etc. He was also a devout Roman Catholic. He was left-wing enough to have been fired at least one time by a major station here for ruffling the feathers of their conservative corporate owner. At any rate, Gallant's radio career finally ended when he developed terminal cancer, and the local Archdiocese hired him as a press secretary (as much to make sure he had access to health care as anything). Well, at one point, a press release he had issues came up here on DU, and you should have seen the number of people who went into full bigot mode in their responses, all assuming that Gallant, because of his position, was a) in the clergy (he wasn't) and b) a pedophile. You had all sorts of wonderful "zingers" like "Gallant, why don't you go back to rogering one of your choirboys?" This to an icon of liberalism in the Pacific Northwest, assumed to be The Enemy simply because of his religion. If that isn't "anti-Christian bigotry," then words no longer have any meaning.

There are doubtless some people bigoted against Catholics, Christians, what have you. The major hue and cry on this subject is raised by fundamentalist organizations, intent on continuing hate speech and denial of civil rights under a cloak of religion. The Catholic Church engages in this as well: certainly a number of bishops do, and they are not reigned in by their superiors or their colleagues. If left and progressive persons who are also Christians or Catholics find themselves uncomfortable, they are going to have to make some choices, and make clear where they really stand. If they do stand against the hate speech and denial of civil rights under guise of religion conducted by leading clergy, they are going top have to seperate from the reactionary rump and denounce it, and cease to protest when others denounce it, and fight against it.

people have to take responsibility for the words and deeds of the elders of their flock.

It is but one more marketing slogan by the uber Christians to falsely present themselves as the victims, while they mete out their hatred and bigotry by the shovel full.

Be prepared to use the same broad brush that you speak of when going to the mat for your fellow bretheren. You can be the most liberal, commie, tree hugging Christian out there. But when you call yourself a Christian you are agreeing to take up the mantle of 2000 years of a sorted history.

I often hear people say "yeah but he is one of the good Christians, not a fundementalist Republican type". I say "you are what your history is". Christianity's history reads like a rap sheet and if you are willing to call yourself one you should be prepared to take it with you. The term "anti Christian bigotry" is like the term "white discrimination". Someone should tell Pat Buchanan and the Christians that use either of these phrases, that neither exists if you are running the show.

Bigotry is wrong, but I personally hope that more people are waking up to the sham that Christianity has perpetrated on the world for 2000 years, it has killed, enslaved, and just made people feel bad about themselves more than any other institution in the history of the world (I suppose you can throw in all religion but I am using Christianity in this example).

So I am asking all Christians to get down off of their crosses and see that the supposed bigotry they speak of is coming from their mouths and actions more often than not. Christian martyrdom is not becoming of you.

... you guys are silent while the bigots and assholes are screaming from the mountaintops 24/7.

I thought I'd just point that out real quick-like.

The problem is that the people worried about "Anti-Christian bigotry" aren't.

Deflection.

Faith without any penalty. I've seen it dozens of times on these boards since 2001.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=291&topic_id=5306&mesg_id=5306


And this thread is just another one in a long line of threads bashing 'Christians' and using Fundies as a foil for their hatred.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5546382&mesg_id=5546382

If you don't feel your beliefs should be ridiculed, then defend them. Beliefs are never sacrosanct. They can and should be challenged.

Why the fuck should I have to fight you for what I believe in? How dumb is that?

More crap.

PS I'm not about to 'change' my mind about being a Christian after believing all of my life.

not one Christian has ever stood as a Christian in public opposition to Fred. Not one. No one makes a sign and goes to stand with those who speak against Fred's vile behavior. They could. They are free to do so, they are in fact asked to do so, but they do not do so.

And as always, let me remind you of the teachings of Jesus, who told his followers to expect ridicule, mockery and even actual persecution. He told you to rejoice in those circumstances, to be glad. He said to celebrate being mocked for his sake. But the 'faithful' here do not rejoice, they whine and seem surprised, when they were warned and told to rejoice.
Why do you complain about mockery when Jesus said to rejoice when mocked for him? Those who are not 'believers' are not under that command, but you are. Why is it that you reject that teaching so fully, loudly, and seemingly without thought for the advice of the actual Savior?

that's why. And unfortunately, your wrong about Fred Phelps. If you paid attention you'd notice the counter-protesters are Christians too, but don't let facts get in the way of your distaste for Christians be they Liberals or Freepturds.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BrFVjg79_iM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FyO4IQoB-mo


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rP6gneH1DRU

This is the 21st Century, not year zero AD. Too many people throughout history have died because they turned the other cheek. And let me be the first to inform you if you had the balls to mock me to my face in the real world and not behind the safety of a message board, eating dirt would be part of your new diet.

So-called 'Progressives' here mock Christianity, but don't dare mock their sacred cows. How contradictory is that? Don't answer, your reply was sarcastic enough.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

of Christians who said something to the effect of "if someone strikes you on one cheek, then turn the other cheek to him"?

What other of Jesus' teachings do you choose to not adhere to?

Just wonderin'.

First, there is large group of political reactionaries attempting to move people to act against their own best economic and social interests by persuading them their problems are owing to the moral imperfections, mostly sexual behavior, of other people, and not to the systematic extraction of money from their pockets into those of the wealthy. In doing this, they brandish the standard of Christian faith. They proclaim it a religious duty to engage in hate speech and restrict the civil rights of many citizens by law, and protest that opposition to this, disagreement with it, any social or legal restriction on it, is interfering with their free exercise of religion, and flows only from bigotry against their religion.

Second, there is the question of genuine critique of a set of religious beliefs. People are entitled to form and hold their own beliefs on religious questions, and are under no obligation to agree with any particular body of beliefs, or to refrain from commenting on what seem to them the flaws in any body of religious beliefs. Persons who do give credit and adherence to a particular body of religious beliefs can have no reasonable expectation, and certainly have no right, to never meet with any expression of disagreement with that body of beliefs, even if that disagreement is so total as to constitute complete disrespect for their beliefs. Nor do such persons have the right to be taken seriously when they cry such expressions of disagreement with or distaste for their beliefs is simply an expression of bigotry. In the overwhelming proportion of instances, such expressions are far from bigotry: in my experience the most vigorous disdain for religious beliefs is found among people who are more familiar with the doctrines and practices they assail than the average person in the Sunday pews.

Obviously, offline there really isn't any palpable "anti-christian bigotry."

Find me a thread from the past five years where a Christian member of DU mocks or castigates Atheists for not believing in God. It is ALWAYS the reverse.

The technique preferred by the camp of believers is precisely this cry of bigotry against their opponents. In debate in left circles, the status of victim is trumps, and to be subjected to bigotry is certainly to be victimized. Thus, in this particular arena, the line is a reasonable enough one to pursue, and sometimes is effective.

The camp of un-believers pursues a strategy based on an older left value, the primacy of reason, feeling that if a view can be shown to be unreasonable, no person of the left will continue in adherence to it. Though antiquated, it is still effective enough at times, as many old-fashioned prove to be when properly employed.

We aren't a 'camp' on DU, we're individuals and not organized. Nice try at pigeonholing us.

Goodbye.

"Persons who do give credit and adherence to a particular body of religious beliefs can have no reasonable expectation, and certainly have no right, to never meet with any expression of disagreement with that body of beliefs, even if that disagreement is so total as to constitute complete disrespect for their beliefs."

i just wrote something similar:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6196104&mesg_id=6197261

"In the overwhelming proportion of instances, such expressions are far from bigotry: in my experience the most vigorous disdain for religious beliefs is found among people who are more familiar with the doctrines and practices they assail than the average person in the Sunday pews."

Yup.

Well said.

Count me among those. No one understands the rampant hypocrisy and seedy underbelly of the modern Christian right juggernaut like those who have been among its adherents.

While it's true that not all Christians are like that, the ones who rule modern Christendom are.

I disagree, to a greater or lesser extent, with the ideas of all religions and I think religion generally has a negative influence on everything. I have every right to criticize those ideas and complain about the harm religious people do. If those people are moderate, left-wing, or apolitical, they are not absolved from criticism.

The guy Obama just picked to head up the NIH drags God all through his science, and the entire government and society at large is under the impression that we're "a Christian nation".

Keep your religion in your home and in your church. Churches are tax exempt for a reason... so they can NOT claim a voice in government.

Pray into one hand, spit into the other, see which one fills up first.

after Carter granted an interview with PLAYBOY magazine during the 1976 presidential campaign.

Carter was assailed for granting the interview with "a salacious and pornographic magazine." The pastor, W. A. Criswell, led the First Baptist Church of Dallas.

The fundie nutbags have been at it a while. Criswell also very actively rallied his followers against John F. Kennedy on grounds that a Kennedy victory over Nixon would place the Vatican in a position of ultimate influence in the U.S. government.

They nutbags and howlers certainly have their numbers and they still manipulate public discourse, but the shift toward casting themselves as victims of "anti-Christian bigots" signals a coming defeat.

Dubya gave these fools just about everything they wanted except the actual keys to the outhouse. They got the dog-whistle phrases in his public addresses. They got "faith-based" volunteerism. They got religious Crusade-like chatter on the Middle East. And so forth on down a grocery list.

But a lot of people, many of them with 24-hour web access, are in sharp and reflexive disagreement with the nutbags on whether stem cell research should be publicly supported and admirably pursued, whether lesbians and gay men should be permitted marriage equalities, and so forth. Colbert's notion that reality has a liberal bias seems to be kicking in. The fundies lost influence in recent elections, even as they wail and screech victimhood. I hope the trend continues.

"Christians" ignore the teachings of Jesus, for the most part. Not all, but the majority of the ones I've known. And I used to be a Christian, myself. In my case, I didn't really appreciate the actual teachings of Jesus until after I rejected Christianity. Most of what I was taught and believed was of the carefully edited Old Testament and the writing of Paul.

Paul was a politician.

Remember when Jesus said that Peter was going to be the foundation, the rock of the Christian church? whatever happened to that? How did the politician Paul manage to replace the disciple Peter?

:shrug:

some serious connections around the empire.

If you haven't already, maybe check out THE LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST, a fine novel by Nikos Kazantzakis (and/or the film by the same name by Martin Scorcese). Paul's character in particular is interesting.

In a late scene in the novel, Paul / Saul speaks to Mary Magdalene:

"I too want to conquer the world. I go down to the ports, see the ships leaving, and my heart burns. I want to reach the ends of the earth, but not as a beggarly slave of a Jew: no, as a king, with my sword! But how? It's impossible. I feel so wretched I want to kill myself. In the meantime I find relief by killing others."

Magdalene tells him:

"I want to reveal to you where (Jesus) is. I want the two of you to meet. He is all sweetness; you all fire. Together, you will conquer the world. But I don't trust you; no, I don't trust you, Saul -- and that's why I'm crying."

I put him in the same group as Buddha, Confucius, Socrates, and Epicurus.

...as things like gender, skin color or sexual orientation.

I think following a religion is a choice. But that's just me. Alot of religious people would probably disagree.

Is it bigotry if you discriminate against admirers of a particular renaissance artist? Can that admirer have chosen otherwise?

I think religions are even more problematic because they are not "value-neutral". Following a religion is more than liking a particular artist because it comes with a set of values and assumptions about nature that you can agree or disagree with.

Personally, I can have friendly conversations with people who are religious. But I will call them out on anything from their belief system that I think defies logic or observation. If they think that is discrimination, I don't see any base for further conversations.

I think employers should have a right to refuse to hire someone if it is obvious that this person will insist on following specific religious practices that will interfere with them doing the specific job that they are being hired for.

Overall, I think the allegations of "anti-religious bigotry" are overblown. Historically the religious institutions have been a primary source of intolerance, and most of discrimination
against particular religions is done by other religions.

I think a person definately has the right to reject all of religion entirely.

For example, Islam institutionalizes the subjugation of women.

Any identifiable group can be subjected to bigotry, and has a right to call it out.

K&U

:kick:

People develop a negative attitude towards the military because of what it does, and not because they are a general bigot who dislikes people different from themselves.

Alot of the strongest criticism of the military or people who join the military comes from people who have either been in the military themselves, or have otherwise developed a very clear understanding of the implications of warfare and militarism.

religious fanatics have historically been used by patriarchy for

take over of other nations, etc.

GOP gave start up funds for the Christian Coalition --

US/CIA used Taliban/AlQaeda in Afghanistan --

They think legalizing gay marriage is an attack of the freedom of religion. They are THAT stupid.