Skip to main content

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

Comment Preferences

  •  The problem is that (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    gnbhull, nominalize

    you're asking for the wrong group of people to be met on their terms.  The Christians are the one's with the privilege in our society.  It's the victims, marginalized, and oppressed that should be engaged on their terms.  Often people who have been abused by something lash out against it in unfair, generalizing ways.  The way to deal with that is not to lecture them on how their insane to believe that that particular group was their oppressor or that not all of them are like that, but to show them through actions and compassion and standing against such oppression from these groups.  You put an end to people making such generalizations by siding with the victims, not by having an argument with them.

    •  you put an end to generalizations (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Nowhere Man, HeyMikey

      by not making generalizations.  I'm telling the majority of Americans who identify as Christians that it's ok to believe as they do on matters of faith, and on politics, that they don't have to let Rick Warren speak for them.  This doesn't involve, by the way, saying Warren isn't a Christian or a True Christian.  I don't much care whether he is or isn't.  If it works to say that his views are inconsistent with not a few teachings of Jesus, and in my view they are inconsistent, that's fine.  But you're suggesting that even discussing the possibility of such a move is itself oppressive, because the world would be better as long as a few like-minded people repeat that oppression is bad as loudly and as often as possible.  The believers have a phrase for this, preaching to the choir.  Is it enough to say end homophobia, etc.?  Would be nice if it were, but as it's not, some constructive engagement of religion is going to be necessary, including pitches on their terms, and recognizing this augments, not derails, discussions of discrimination.  Either acceptance is a pluralistic vision, in which case it is a value that can be accepted by religious and non-religious alike, and all points in between, or it's not, either because the Constitution is flawed or because you posit a much broader conflict with religion than you seem to want to admit.  

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

      by Loge on Tue Apr 10, 2012 at 11:26:50 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site