Excuse me ... Aren't you the shop owner who refuses service to GBLTQ groups?

[Buzz Clik]

Well, my religious upbringing taught me that intolerance is sin, so kindly get the fuck out of my store. Have a nice day!

(Of course, that won't happen with real Christians, but, then, a real Christian would never pass or sign a law like that in the first place.)

[RKP5637]

1. These are people operating under the veil of Christianity to practice their

hatefulness. It is sport for them and they get a sadistic kick out of it.

[TheCowsCameHome]

2. ^^^^^ + a whole bunch ^^^^^

That is so true.

Wife's best friend practically lives in a church, then listens to hate radio and TV when she isn't busy genuflecting and quoting the bible.

[arcane1]

4. Bill Maher rightly called it "laundering their hate"

He was speaking about Jerry Fallwell but it applies just as perfectly here. They won't openly admit to their hate and OWN it, so they blame it on Jesus.

[RKP5637]

5. Yes, exactly! n/t

[F4lconF16]

3. They are real Christians.

You don't get to decide who is, and who isn't. Please stop excusing the role religion has played in this.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/No_True_Scotsman

No True Scotsman is a logical fallacy by which an individual attempts to avoid being associated with an unpleasant act by asserting that no true member of the group they belong to would do such a thing; this fallacy also applies to defining a term or criteria biasedly as to defend it from counterargument which can be identified as a biased, persuasive, or rhetorical definition. Instead of acknowledging that some members of a group have undesirable characteristics, the fallacy tries to redefine the group to exclude them. Sentences such as "all members of X have desirable trait Y" then become tautologies, because Y becomes a requirement of membership in X.

Also:

With respect to religion, the fallacy is well used, often even overused. Religious apologists will repeatedly try to use the No True Scotsman argument to distance themselves from more extreme or fundamentalist groups, but this does not prevent such extremists actually being religious - they themselves would certainly argue otherwise. Moderate Muslim leaders, for example, are well known for declaring Islamic extremists as "not true Muslims" as Islam is a "religion of peace." Similarly, moderate Christians, such as those in Europe, are sometimes aghast when viewing their fundamentalist counterparts in the US, immediately declaring them "not true Christians," even though they believe in the same God and get their belief system from the same book. Many of these statements stating that the extremists are not true believers are often used as a reaction against Guilt by Association.

snip

It's a tricky business, as being a member of a religious group, to the minds of those involved, encompasses adhering to a certain standard of behavior. For example, charity can certainly be called an essentially Christian ethic, considering the emphasis that Jesus placed on it. The man himself would most definitely disavow the greedy and "What's mine is mine" mindset of many right-wingers who call themselves Christians. However, strictly speaking, a Christian is defined as "one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ"; there's no rule saying they have to do it right.

Going to call this out every time I see it.

[eomer]

6. Hmm, but the source you cite says essentially the same thing that you took exception to.

I'm pretty sure the OP meant to make the distinction between a real Christian being a person who both professes and embodies belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ and not a real Christian being a person who makes a false profession because they don't actually believe and embody, all they do is profess.

That's essentially the same thing that your cite says as:

However, strictly speaking, a Christian is defined as "one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ"; there's no rule saying they have to do it right.

It seems reasonable to say that a person who professes but doesn't "do it right" is not a "real Christian" but rather a "false Christian". Unless you just want to find an argument where there really isn't one.

[F4lconF16]

7. I think that is *almost* reasonable. I'll get to that in a bit.

The OP did not make that distinction, and that is critical. For every person I've heard make the argument that you are making, and that isn't often, I've heard 10+ people commit the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. It's an argument that, as identified in the rationalwiki link, attempts to remove the act from the religion. It's not true, and is a very harmful idea. Religion is closely associated with and a direct cause of a long history of terrible acts. We should not distance the two, but instead recognize how it happens. That is the only way we can continue to progress. (#notallbelievers, etc., etc., the usual disclaimers.)

There is also a subtle difference between the argument you proposed and what the page I cited says. All that the cited page claims is that if someone defines themselves as Christians, even very loosely, that is what matters. That is something that I agree with, though I might add a couple of other qualifications in there, such as the belief in a single God--heck, by that definition, I (an atheist/anti-theist) am a Christian, because I certainly agree with most of what Jesus taught.

Here's where it gets finicky. Your argument, however, introduces another concept that the cited page does not, which for lack of a better term I am going to call "absolute Christianity". This is the idea that there is only one true way to interpret the Bible/teachings of Jesus, that there is a standard of Christianity that other Christians can be compared to. Though you did not state this, that's the only way to define whether someone is "doing it right" or not--otherwise the terms "false" and "real" are meaningless. I think that's a pretty bad way to go about it--if you go by the "follows the teachings of Jesus" and/or the "is a good person" argument, what is arguably the "most Christian" of all Christian sects, the Catholic Church, is by almost any measure NOT Christian. That's completely false.

If you'd like a bit more on my perspective on this, check out this thread I posted over in the Atheists and Agnostics group:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/123037534

[el_bryanto]

8. The key point is that anybody who participates in the Christian religion is in part responsible

for the actions of these bigots. Christians have to own them, even if they completely disagree with what they say.

Bryant

[F4lconF16]

9. I'm not sure if that's what you're saying I meant or if that's just your opinion.

Let's be clear: that's not what I'm saying. They are not responsible for the horrors that others have perpetrated, no more than Muslims here in the US are responsible for the Charlie Hebdo killings.

However, I would argue that by participating in a church, they are legitimizing others. There's far more subtlety to that then I have time for at the moment, so please don't mischaracterize my words again. To be honest, I don't think I'm really interested in discussing it with you either--your (I think) hostility in this response does not make me think it will be an interesting conversation.

[el_bryanto]

10. Well your response shows that you aren't interested in making much sense

So that's ok. You state that Christians aren't responsible for these actions, but that they do legitimize them by participating in a religion. Doesn't legitimizing them make them easier to do? And if a Christian, by participating in a church, makes it easier for these actions to be taken, doesn't that make them, in some small part, responsible?

Bryant

[F4lconF16]

11. In the same way that I am responsible for global warming by driving a car on rare occasion.

Am I the cause of global warming? No. Am I contributing? Yes. Am I partly responsible? Depends.

Like I said, there's a lot of subtlety. It's not black and white.

You seem to want me to come out and blame all Christians for the evils of the world and the awful things done in the name of religion. I'm not going to do that, because then you, as so many people do, will jump all over me and call me a terrible, horrible, no-good atheist who just wants to hate on religious people.

Religion is huge. It's practically inescapable. Everyone, everywhere, will have their lives touched in some way by religion. Most people (the vast majority) will spend their lives participating in a major religion. Those major religions are responsible for a large amount of harm around the world (the Catholic Church is my go-to example here). Now, I could say that that makes them partly responsible, which is what you assume is what I'm arguing, and to some extent I am. However, I don't necessarily blame them for it, which is the whole grey area thing that I mentioned.

Because religion is so inescapable, I have no animosity towards those who practice it because that's what they were taught and grew up with, no more than I would be angry at someone for using a car to get to work despite the ramifications for the climate. People depend on religion for their support systems; people need religion for community; people practice religion because they want to stay close to their family. There are myriad legitimate reasons to practice religion. I'm not angry with them; I get pissed when those people use their religious beliefs to discriminate and harm others. I blame right-wing conservative Christians for their bigotry and for the harm they have inflicted on LGBT peoples the world around, because they use their religion to harm people in their lives. I don't blame all Catholics for the actions of the church. On the other hand, if they support those bigoted beliefs found in the church, then I do blame them. It's not a one-size-fits-all thing; I take it on a case by case basis.

However, not blaming believers on an individual level does not negate the blame I do place on religious organizations, and indeed, the concept of a religion itself. I don't understand you can truly study the history of religion and not recoil from the horrors that have been motivated by and enacted in the name of religious belief. When you attend a church, you support the concept of faith-based belief, which I have seen to be harmful to a progressive, rational society (A reasonable explanation for that can be found here, though I don't necessarily agree with everything the author states). When you practice your belief, you are stating that you believe that faith-based belief is acceptable. When you do so, as the link I provided explains, you open the door to all of the harm that religious belief can cause, even if you do not do so yourself. This is how I can simultaneously hold believers responsible for legitimizing others--in particular extremists--but not for the harm directly.

In yet another layer to this mess, I do want to point out that ignorance can be harmful. When people are unaware of the harm their church or religion causes, they perpetuate that harm, even if they might virulently disagree with what is done in their name.

If you're not going to read the whole article I linked (which you should, because I'm not sure you will understand where I am coming from otherwise), please at least take the time to read the introduction and the last section, titled "Yes, even moderate religion still does harm".

...

Another thing I almost forgot: there are atheists and anti-theists out there who are furious with believers who ignore the harm that their support can cause, and those that continue to attend churches that are bastions of oppression and bigotry. Given the harm those organizations have caused for so many years, I do not blame them for a second. I think it's entirely their right to believe as such, and to be very vocal about it. Just to be clear.

[el_bryanto]

12. I have read that article and I don't find it persuasive

I understand the argument; if I were not a believer I would find it persuasive.

But I am a believer, so I argue for coexistence.

Bryant

[eomer]

13. Well said and I agree with all of it. But I'd add a clarification.

The clarification is that there are some religions that aren't based on any faith-based beliefs. Of course some might say they're not religions in that case, which I also find reasonable.

But my point is that there can be instances of liberal Christianity or other liberal "religions" that do not require or encourage faith-based beliefs and therefore wouldn't be to blame by the theory in the article you cite.

[F4lconF16]

14. I would be one of those that would not consider that a religion.

I would consider it more a philosophy. Religion has always been defined as a belief in a supernatural being or similar, by religious and non-religious alike.

What liberal Christianity does not require faith-based belief? I think that is a contradiction of terms.

I would agree that things like Buddhism are not included in that article, and indeed, there is much to respect about that philosophy (once you pull out the non-sciency parts, imo).

[eomer]

15. re: "What liberal Christianity does not require faith-based belief?"

What I mean by that is Christianity that consists of adopting the teachings of Jesus (as told in the Bible, whether or not historical Jesus existed) without believing that he was something more than a man or believing in supernatural god(s).

I don't know whether there any churches that have that as their official position but at the very least there are individuals who take this position and so that's who I'm talking about - the individuals and also the churches if any exist.

I think there may be some Unitarian Universalist churches that fit but am not sure.

I agree with you that calling them "Christian" is something of a contradiction since the "Christ" in "Christian" implies belief in the divinity of Jesus. But I think that "liberal Christian" is what they're called, whether we like the term or not.

[m-lekktor]

16. exactly!! thank you.

you just pointed out one of my pet peeves. it's fucking ANNOYING!