Skip to main content

View Diary: "No True Scotsman" and Jesus: UPDATE (89 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  that's having your cake and eating it to (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Nowhere Man, HeyMikey

    it's fine to say one isn't the target until one makes it about oneself, but that absolves you from the responsibility of being precise with your language.  If you don't want to talk about all but a subset of Christians, then identify the ones you have a problem with, or the particular belief structures you object to, by name.  Don't say "Christians," or even "white people" and act surprised if people don't take it the way you want.  Your position is that if you take a stand against racism or homophobia, you should have a free pass to say it however recklessly you want to.  This particular comment seems to suggest that insisting on greater clarity is somehow minimizing the problems, when it's instead proposing a more constructive way to engage with members of those particular groups.  I find it interesting that you can say it's not about "you," when your argument is structured so that any tactical disagreement is somehow indicative of lesser morality and delegitimized.

    The study of law was certainly a strange discipline. -- Yukio Mishima

    by Loge on Tue Apr 10, 2012 at 10:07:30 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Loge, what you're advocating (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      BPARTR, stormicats, blueoasis, pot, KathleenM1

      is no different than the white male responding to the feminist and getting all worked up and saying "but not all men are like that!"  The feminist knows this, but is trying to respond to the problem that is there.  That man just derails the discussion making it harder to fight sexism.  You're doing the same here with religion.  You'll show the true nature of your religion not by making the discussion about you, but by actually fighting beside the marginalized and oppressed to overturn these injustices.

      •  thank you for the words in my mouth, (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Nowhere Man, HeyMikey

        it's interesting that you would do so exactly after I explained that's what you're doing.  

        Your example conspicuously leaves out what it is the feminist says, just what she knows.  In these discussions, the person playing the role of the feminist says things like "Catholics are sexist," blah blah blah.  Who's derailed the discussion then?  If the "all men aren't like that" is called for by the comment, the discussion is already on the wrong foot.  If not, then you're making a strawman.  

        I don't have a religion, fwiw.  But I think telling people that they can't defend frontal attacks on theirs has already derailed the discussion from social justice to the religion itself.  If you want to make the case that it's a necessary step, then you wouldn't be alone.  However, you don't then get to say that it's tangential.

        The study of law was certainly a strange discipline. -- Yukio Mishima

        by Loge on Tue Apr 10, 2012 at 10:23:46 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  There isn't real sexism in (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          pot

          the Catholic church?  I'm not putting words in your mouth but discussing how such rejoinders functionally derail fights against oppression.  All of this has been explained repeatedly in diaries discussing sexism and racism here at dailykos.  The same points apply in the religious discussions.

          •  there is, (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            HeyMikey

            what's your point.  I don't think bolding words makes the case better.  Do you have any new allies in the Catholic church for your troubles?  Or have you actually reinforced their false oppression narrative.  Speaking of "functional" effects.  

            The NTS argument is not the only way, or even the most common way, to point out that you simply have no idea how one can or should engage with religious people on matters of common concern.  

            The study of law was certainly a strange discipline. -- Yukio Mishima

            by Loge on Tue Apr 10, 2012 at 11:16:41 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I have admiration for (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              blueoasis

              many Catholics and admire the work their doing.  Anyone with half a brain knows that when a feminist denounces sexism in the catholic church she's targeting the institution, not all Catholics.  Many Catholics will agree with her.  For example, my grandmother.  Getting bent out of shape about the statement "Catholicism is sexist" is an infantile response to a criticism whose target should be obvious.

              •  As Emperor Claudius once said, (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                HeyMikey

                it's the quality not the quantity of brains that count.  And a few people with half-wits still intact can discern that a lot of people on the left do not discuss religion in a particularly constructive or engaging or inviting way.  So, it's ambiguous whether one is only referring to sexist aspects or the whole shebang by a statement that is, itself infantile like Catholicism is sexist.  (Who knows, is the following statement going to be, "and you're sexist unless you quit?")  What's more, while there are many Catholics who believe this, you still need to get to 50% plus 1 to win an election.  

                If you are as concerned about derailing discussion as you claim to be, why not limit the discussion to "sexism is sexist," and recognize that when people point out that forces within the Catholic or any other church that are against sexism are as legitimate if not more so than contrary forces -- even if in response to you -- they're doing a favor to the issues and people you purport to care about.

                The study of law was certainly a strange discipline. -- Yukio Mishima

                by Loge on Tue Apr 10, 2012 at 11:37:26 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

      •  put another way, (0+ / 0-)

        please explain why "without qualification" excludes defending the particulars of one's own faith.  "Not all Christians are X" is not a statement that qualifies opposition to sexism unless you want it to be, which is a particularly mendacious strawman.  It can either be relevant or irrelevant to the discussion, and if it's irrelevant to the discussion, it would be fine to question motive.  That is, religion doesn't much belong in a discussion of contraception access, no matter what Timothy Cardinal Dolan says.  But it's very likely going to be relevant to a discussion of Rick Warren, himself, and insisting otherwise essentially says there's not only one permissible view of the man but only one permissible way to discuss him.  That's putting words in other people's mouths.  What's more, that being right on issues of gay rights and so forth somehow immunizes statements that are on their face attacks on other people's religious faith, even where there's not a personal conflict between faith and liberal moral conviction.  

        The study of law was certainly a strange discipline. -- Yukio Mishima

        by Loge on Tue Apr 10, 2012 at 10:43:26 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Because it changes the subject (0+ / 0-)

          from fighting that sexism therefore reinforcing that sexism and giving it cover.

          •  i understand what point you want to make, (0+ / 0-)

            but there's a leap there that doesn't work.  changing the subject from fighting sexism is not actually giving cover to sexism in all cases -- it matters why, and in the example given, it's not really changing the subject if you're the one introducing religion in the first place.  You could make the case that considering the launching point was a discussion of Rick Warren's politics, you're doing the derailing.

            The study of law was certainly a strange discipline. -- Yukio Mishima

            by Loge on Tue Apr 10, 2012 at 11:13:03 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  so what you are advocating is (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Loge, HeyMikey

        that folks, like feminists or those upset with religion, have no obligation to be precise with their language and thus should be able to paint with a broad brush, because those getting the paint on them unfairly, should just know that they don't really mean all Christians, or all men.

        •  I think, by and large, that (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          stormicats, gnbhull

          we are precise in our language and that a lot of emotion enters the picture from your side.  Additionally, we give leeway to oppressed minorities in these cases because we recognize that they have been truly wronged.  What I'm advocating is that you do the Christ-like thing and side with the oppressed group and make common struggle with them.  Rather than trying to correct their mistaken generalizations about Christians you instead simply say you're a Christian, making common cause with the oppressed in their struggle, and show them not all Christians are lime that?  Wouldn't that be closer to your own ethical philosophy and more constructive?

          •  from my side? (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Loge, bevenro, Wee Mama, HeyMikey

            I'm agnostic. I don't have a "side." I find theists and atheists two sides of the same coin.

            I don't have to do the "Christ-like thing" because I'm not a follower of his, although all-in-all, he seemed to have a few good ideas for his time, just like Buddha, and Confuscious.

            So, you're entire post proved my point. You assumed I was a Christian, even though my first post said I wasn't religious at all, and you then proceded from that to lecture me about how I should act as the Christian that I am not.

            I think you made my point dead-on, without realizing it.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site