Christianophobia

Samaris wrote: »

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

Which secular state?

Ireland is, legally and constitutionally, a secular state with a lot of Christian, particularly Catholic, influences. Now, that's something that can be attacked and -should- be attacked.

Article 44.2.1 of the Constitution of Ireland - The State guarantees not to endow any religion.

That is the proclaiming that it is a secular state, not a religious one. I think we can all agree that it has not worked out that way in practice, though, and that's something that needs ever more chipping away at until it is actually secular rather than just technically secular.

Rest of my points stand still, I think

The secular state of Ireland - which says a prayer before Dail sittings and teaching Maths in school

Samaris wrote: »

Yep. Hence the difference between technically and legally and in practice. That needs to be dealt with and acknowledged (and I've absolutely not denied it myself!).

But my original point was not attacking Christians as false merely because they leave aside some of the bloodier aspects of their faith. I'd reckon that's a view we can all get together on, not murdering people, so what's the point of being rude to them for it?

I don't think that anyone wants to be rude. The problem is that the religious of all faiths can see any mocking or joking as rude. Dave Allen was a wonderful example.

If you have a faith then you shouldn't be concerned about those who joke about it.

Discodog wrote: »

I don't think that anyone wants to be rude. The problem is that the religious of all faiths can see any mocking or joking as rude. Dave Allen was a wonderful example.

If you have a faith then you shouldn't be concerned about those who joke about it.

Do you really don't think that anyone wants to be rude, when a legitimate argument against someone who goes to Mass, follows the teachings of their religious leader (Jesus in this case) and has no issues with gay people is "You're not a proper Christian then!". Like, what do they want? The Christian to respond "Yes, I see what you mean. Henceforth, I shall wear clothing of only one cloth and stone gays wherever I see them, thus shall I be a true Christian."

Congrats, cognative dissonance is eliminated. Personally, I am absolutely grand with cd that allows people to get on with their lives.

This is a bit different from jokes. One is friendly, the other is accusatory. "You're not a real Christian/ a-la-carte Christian/ picking and choosing" is accusatory and self-defeating if the actual aim is a peaceful and liberal society. It works out perfectly if it's the aim of one person to be -right- though. Personally, I think the peaceful and liberal society is more important.

deaddonkey15 wrote: »

Right about what? Can you please show me where in my posts I've insulted christians? Because that's twice now you've said it. I've highlighted the hypocrisy of the beliefs of most christians in this country, that's all.

I'm talking about a larger point of view that is encapsulated by your phrasing. Your point of view appears to be that either one is Christian, and thus follows every law of the New and Old Testament in its absolute, because it is the Word of God, which indeed is said in the Bible, or one is not and shouldn't follow any of it and claim to be a Christian because they're factually incorrect about what's in the Bible, is what I've picked up? If that is correct, then I'm refuting it in terms of what is absolutely factually correct versus what people can live with in a modern, theoretically secular society, and saying that it is downright counter-productive to accuse liberal Christians as not being true Christians because they want their religion to evolve into something compatible with modern life, not the lives of 2000+ years ago. If that means they choose a Christian concept of kindness and tolerance* over an earlier concept of cruelty, war and slavery, I'm all for not pointing out that they're factually incorrect, and quite happy to let them be modern Christians rather than insisting on pointing out cognitive dissonance.

Hence, do people using that argument wish to be correct, or do they wish to have a liberal, tolerant society where people can practice their beliefs as long as it doesn't impact on other people? A far-distant ideal is the elimination of religion entirely, in which case it's a perfectly valid argument, but I don't think it's the most immediate and important aspect with the world as it is right now.



*Which is, ofc, not limited to Christians.

Discodog wrote: »

Someone apparently said that a Christian should just turn the other cheek

Helpful, that, isn't it? Can then attack Christians and say they can't defend themselves by the basis of their own religion.

Again, easy, correct, but not right.

Regarding the Historical Jesus debate, Bart Ehrman's books are very well written and easy to read, if you want to educate yourself on a more academic level than web forum hearsay.

Samaris wrote: »

Can you honestly not see the difference between the accusations/insults of al-a-carte Christians not being true Christians (something that attacks directly at part of their very being), and jokes about turning water into wine or walking on water?

But the a la carte comments can equally come from Christians who are more fundamental in their views. You appear to have been subjected to comments that you personally find offensive. Have you addressed them with the person who made them ?

Discodog wrote: »

But the a la carte comments can equally come from Christians who are more fundamental in their views. You appear to have been subjected to comments that you personally find offensive. Have you addressed them with the person who made them ?

Oh, they can absolutely sod off as well I'm mostly looking at it from the wider perspective of how we, as a nation that aims for secularism, treat those who have different beliefs.

Nah, I'm pretty much agnostic myself*. But I am more concerned about how the nation, which is made up of Christians, Catholics, other religions, agnostics, resentful ex-Catholics, atheists and everything in between, can live with itself. I am tolerant of other beliefs, even if I don't believe in them myself, and do not like to see liberal Christians being attacked by smartarsed comments that make it harder for them to fit their own beliefs and way of life into their society. That's the basis of my issues with that particular argument, which is absolutely not the be-all and end-all of the "Christianophobia" debate.

Mind you, and here's another can of worms!, I also think that "christianophobia" is a rather extreme term for the tension between pro-secularists and pro-religious. Except in extreme and isolated cases, I don't think it's a Thing in the same way that Islamophobia is rising, either in how it's construed, misunderstood, disliked, or resented.

*I don't have to have been personally insulted by someone to disagree with an argument, even one I feel somewhat passionately about :P

I instantly think less of someone if I find out they are religious, whatever that religion might be.

Brian? wrote: »

I really try not to, but it's very hard not to think less of religious people. I have the same problem with people who believe in conspiracy theories and people who are very right wing. So it's not just religion, but nonsense ideas that gig me thay feeling.

I also think less of adults who bring up Harry Potter in a discussion about literature.

I feel that people who are big Dan Brown fans need to be executed immediately.

*backs away rapidly!*

I actually quite enjoyed The Da Vinci Code. It was a fun yarn. I'll admit the rest of his books were like reading a lather-rinse-repeat though.

Samaris wrote: »

In truth, and as a probable agnostic, I take to a person less if it seems they are willing to dismiss someone as a person based on whether or not they have a religion or religious beliefs. I don't deny they have the right to their beliefs, I just think they are being unreasonably sweeping.

I know, it's not a good quality to have and thankfully it's not present in any other walk of life concerning those with wacky or unusual interests but I just can't help that internal sigh of disappointment I get when religion is the subject.

Less christians, more lions!