Religion
Related: About this forumIf someone publicly claims to be an adherent to a religion,
that person represents that religion to some degree and reflects the beliefs or nature of that religion to some degree. In words, in behavior, in demeanor, the label is firmly attached by that adherence. That's a rather interesting phenomenon at times. That's something I've noticed. Sometimes its even troubling, really.
Mc Mike
(9,111 posts)I'm a Catholic, practicing, but I feel a polar opposition to Ayn Rand loving Paul Ryan, and Opus Dei cultist sheisskopf Rick Santorum.
I won't cede the field of my faith to them. I'll keep showing up, wearing a dump trump pin to church. They even have me take collection for the mass, sometimes with that pin on. Free advertising against the nazis.
I know the bad things done by the hierarchy, in the past and currently. I oppose them. Back Francis when he's good. Religion has never made me oppose one scientific theory or historic fact.
MineralMan
(146,254 posts)You have stated your position. I read it. There is a range of levels of adherence.
Mc Mike
(9,111 posts)I admit there are baddies inside my faith, or who say they are my faith. I never mind calling b.s. on the people who are in charge, though.
Why I remarked on the open endedness, was after a couple of readings, I couldn't see where you were coming from in the o.p.
MineralMan
(146,254 posts)Not at all.
As for not being able to see where I'm coming from, I'm not really coming from anywhere with this. It's just a statement of reality. Not everyone represents their own religion in a positive way. Sometimes, they do just the opposite.
Mc Mike
(9,111 posts)But around here, in the US, Catholics are a minority. The church I just came from was extorted by a sub group of catholic power enforcers from Henry Frick, after he torched our city's cathedral, to build his Union Trust Bldg.
It's full of bizarre arcane symbology, and the Diocese, which would sell any piece of property, shut any church, for a buck, wouldn't sell this one to build the Penguin's new stadium.
Prods don't really see the Catholics as 'christian', and my first reaction when someone is going to go off openly about how 'christian' they are, is instant wariness, because the right wing fundy bircher repug ones are the ones that spring to mind, the second the person starts 'testifying.' I just get tired of hearing them talk about it, too. Personally, I don't try to proselytize other people. I pay attention to Kristi Winters and Kevin Logan, and they're rational skeptical humanist anti-nazis.
Here's a good one from PFAW's Right Wing watch, this week. IslamoCatholic conspiracy, from the dRumpfenfuhrer's bircher repug christian backers:
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/christian-radio-show-warns-of-satanic-merger-of-catholicism-and-islam/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=rww&utm_campaign=bestof
I like Islamicists, just fine. But Catholics were always a bit beyond the pale in this country. One of the klan's big three enemies. Despite the fascist ones who the repugs felt were 'reasonable', so they could work with them, work on hating women, gays, minorities, other religions.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)This perception of yours is merely your own personal view on what is real.
MineralMan
(146,254 posts)I return your advice to you for consideration.
Major Nikon
(36,818 posts)Including those who believe in imaginary support networks.
Mariana
(14,854 posts)of what makes for positive or negative representation.
For example, many DUers don't agree with Pat Robertson, and consider him not to be a true Christian. They feel his statements and views reflect negatively on Christianity. However, Robertson's views are extremely popular among Christians, and have been so for many years. He has become extremely rich because so many Christians consider his message to be a positive one. They send him money so he'll continue doing what he is doing, and they praise him for his efforts to promote their idea of Christianity.
Major Nikon
(36,818 posts)When someone claims Dawkins is a misogynist and the Pope is a hero, it's not hard to sort the wheat from the chaff.
wasupaloopa
(4,516 posts)in your mind. Nothing else.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Richard Dawkins immediately comes to mind, what shall one infer?
Or if an American citizen massacres non-white civilians, what should one infer about Americans?
Or is your self-discovered truth only applicable to theism?
MineralMan
(146,254 posts)nor does it have congregations or worship services. It represents nothing, really, in terms of rules or principles. Each atheist is an individual, without associations to organized atheism. That's because there is no real organized atheism that speaks for atheists in general.
But you knew that already.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)And I understand your point, or what you intended it to be.
Major Nikon
(36,818 posts)The OP stated quite clearly the actions of a person of faith reflect on that particular faith. The OP didn't say that reflection transfers back to someone else who may also subscribe to that faith.
I get you can't help yourself from making false equivalences between belief systems and things that aren't belief systems, but when you start pretending everyone else believes that rubbish is where you screw up.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)that person represents that religion to some degree and reflects the beliefs or nature of that religion to some degree. In words, in behavior, in demeanor, the label is firmly attached by that adherence. That's a rather interesting phenomenon at times. That's something I've noticed. Sometimes its even troubling, really.
"that person represents that religion" should have been the clue. Yes, it is qualified with "to some degree", but the obvious point is to attach the person to the label.
So, if Richard Dawkins, a very public atheist, has made many misogynistic remarks, or for that matter, if other atheists engage in the misogynistic comments or behavior, does Dawkins or any other person represent atheists to some degree?
So, speaking of clues and points... ..
msongs
(67,360 posts)guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Major Nikon
(36,818 posts)Docreed2003
(16,850 posts)guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)by an understanding of the actual post, what a day that would be.
Igel
(35,274 posts)"If someone publicly claims to be a member of a group and have that as his/her identity, that person represents that religion to some degree and reflects the values or nature of that group to some degree."
It makes the individual the grist for outsiders' definitional mills. But which individual do you pick? Does the group have to agree that the individual is, even, a member? Does it matter if the group allows that the individual may be a member, but like a person who finds out that he's 1/256th Cree and whose family has had no Cree connections for the last 5 generations, isn't really a good representative?
What if the group is one based on ideals, and not actions?
Or the label the group has is so loose as to be uninformative except in the most general terms. I have little in common in most regards with Catholics or Baptists, yet still use the name "Christian." Yet I deny the trinity and reject Easter and Christmas and Sunday worship, considering their tradition to follow late first century heresies and being only slightly more Xian than Muslims. Yet they want to apply the name to themselves, and it's a free country.
The point is that there's a tension between having a group define itself and having outsiders define the group. For example, a woman may be taken by men as being a great example of feminism because of what she says, but feminists themselves may disagree. In response, extensive mansplainin' may occur because the out-group's defining of that particular group is, to the out-group, decisive. Most would agree with that as a counterexample.
At the same time, there are examples of a man being taken as representative of some subgroup of men, but men themselves may consider that individual as a non-example, as non-representative. In response, extensive "womansplainin'" may occur because the out-group's defining of that particular group is, to the out-group, decisive.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)Someone acting terribly gets seen as terribly, they slap a Christian(tm) label on themselves and everyone's perception of them raises. Put an Atheist label on them and they are terrible.
Take two prominent examples of their respective groups. Richard Dawkins and Pope Francis. Dawkins is outspoken and nuanced in his beliefs (not used in the religious god meaning of the word, because some people get confused when that word is used) but on a limited platform he is easily taken out of context and people love to hate on him. He is villainized regardless of the works he's done.
Francis has openly encouraged violence against people who insult his beliefs. He has also encouraged child abuse, calling it "Beautiful" He has traveled the world fighting marriage equality, and actively fights against women's rights. He is seen as a great person because he washed someone's feet once and drives a reasonable car.
just my take on it.
Major Nikon
(36,818 posts)guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)So his many examples of misogyny represent nuance?
Is that what they call mansplaining?
Major Nikon
(36,818 posts)I am wary of masculinity in a skirt.
Do you know what a nun who gossips is? A terrorist.
Be a mother and not an old maid!
Woman theologians are the strawberries on the cake!
Pastors often wind up under the authority of their housekeeper!
A church that seems more like a spinster than a mother
The fact is, woman was taken from a rib.
Europe is now a grandmother, no longer fertile and vibrant.
This comes from your hero, the current Pope, not Dawkins.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)but the point remains.
Major Nikon
(36,818 posts)Meanwhile the Pope's comments speak for themselves and you can't seem to admit your hero is a misogynist who represents one of the most harmful misogynistic organizations on the planet. Believe it or not that's exactly the point of the OP, and even if you could possibly provide equivalent examples from Dawkins (and I'm sure you can't), the very best you'd have is a false equivalence.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)I assume you're going to call out the pope the same way you are calling out Dawkins? One claims to speak for your creator when he travels the world fighting against marriage equality and opressing women.
And it's not the atheist.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Dawkins is clearly representing atheism, correct?.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)but he doesn't represent it like the Pope represents catholicism, if that's where you're trying to get at.
struggle4progress
(118,224 posts)The conclusion seems rather sweeping
If someone self-identifies as a scientist, then behaves badly, does that tarnish scientists?
Major Nikon
(36,818 posts)The point of the OP was that a person's behavior attaches to their belief system.
struggle4progress
(118,224 posts)Major Nikon
(36,818 posts)Meanwhile the analogy used only serves to obfuscate rather than clarify, which is often the case when no analogy is needed, yet offered anyway.
A more relevant question to the OP, that needs no analogy, is if the Pope says something intolerant, does that tarnish Catholicism? The answer is self-evident.
Bretton Garcia
(970 posts)Last edited Mon May 28, 2018, 05:19 PM - Edit history (1)
That included not only Pharisees.
But also St. Paul warned about "Cephas," or St. Peter; his insincerity and inconsistency, Gal. 2.11, etc..
But? This means it is pretty much logically impossible for Bible-following Christians not to be hypocrites. If Christians try to follow the Bible, they would have to follow the writings of both Paul and Peter. But? Paul says Peter was not good.
So in sum? We should not be surprised to find hypocrisy in Christians. It was logically built into the system, by the Bible itself.