![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Randy Milholland, writer, artist, and overall brilliant creative mind behind Something*Positive, posted a challenge to Christians here.
It's interesting. And it's a fair question. And I'm going to do my best to explain my stance on obnoxious Christian fundamentalists as a left-leaning Roman Catholic Christian.
The first thing that non-Christians need to understand, though, is that we don't all hang out. I don't see Pat Robertson at Sunday dinner and have just taken a pass on telling him what an embarrassing bigot he is. I haven't refrained from smacking Billy Graham upside the head just to keep peace in the family. There is no Christian clubhouse, there is no secret handshake. Really. Think back to Western Civ. I and a little to-do historians like to call the Reformation. We spent several hundred years trying to kill each other over various dogmatic, theological, and political issues, and there are Christians out there who still would consider me a godless pagan because I am an idolatrous Catholic who worships the pope and Mary. Hell, Protestants and Catholics only just stopped trying to kill each other in Northern Ireland. So telling me to stand up and speak to Christians because they'll listen to me because I'm also Christian is not nearly as constructive as it sounds.
Another problem arises when you consider rifts within individual denominations. I'm Roman Catholic, and for many people, that statement raises images of people who don't like sex, who walk in lockstep with an old, out-of-touch Italian (or Polish, or German) man, and who are virulently insular. If you know me, you know that's not me. That's not a lot of Catholics. But there are Catholics who are like that. Many of the more politically-talented of us are entrenched in trying to reform our religions, like in the crisis facing the Episcopal Church over homosexuality. My father is nominally a Republican, but he's been so caught up in working for reform in his order that he doesn't have time to work for reform in his political party. My point is that the best people to speak up often have other priorities that take precedence.
So, I hear you saying to yourself, "Self, Icewolf is doing a bang up job of making excuses for Christians." I'd call it background information, but I see your point. To that end, I will make some suggestions.
Churches who oppose the "vocal minority" need to cross denominational--and even religious--lines to work together in the community. The "good" Christians have always been bigger fans of action example over rhetoric, so let's put that belief to work, so to speak. Those pesky corporal works of mercy, you know. We're never going to out-scream the other side: it's neither possible nor becoming. It's certainly un-Christian.
But, even more importantly, we must be proud of who we are on an individual level. We need to work for peace and understanding in our communities, in our country, in the political arena, and in the world, and we need to be perfectly transparent about our motives: "I'm doing this good/understanding/peaceful/constructive thing because my faith tells me it's the right thing to do." Many of us avoid saying so because we're afraid to be lumped in with the crazies. We're frightened and embarrassed by our faith in front of our political allies, so we keep it under a bushel-basket. Then we go to church, and sometimes are told we're not good Catholics, Baptists, Lutherans, what have you, so we stash our political principles under the basket, too.
Maybe it's because I come from a family of religious dissenters. I'm the latest in a long line of rabble-rousers in the Catholic Church. But I remember my confirmation. I was sprinkled, anointed, and given a new name, Brigid. I was also given a light, symbolic slap across the face by the bishop. The gesture stood for the possible persecution I must be willing to face as an adult in the Church. Jesus never promised us a rose garden--He got Gethsemane himself. But He absolutely does require us to have the courage of our convictions. All of them.
It's interesting. And it's a fair question. And I'm going to do my best to explain my stance on obnoxious Christian fundamentalists as a left-leaning Roman Catholic Christian.
The first thing that non-Christians need to understand, though, is that we don't all hang out. I don't see Pat Robertson at Sunday dinner and have just taken a pass on telling him what an embarrassing bigot he is. I haven't refrained from smacking Billy Graham upside the head just to keep peace in the family. There is no Christian clubhouse, there is no secret handshake. Really. Think back to Western Civ. I and a little to-do historians like to call the Reformation. We spent several hundred years trying to kill each other over various dogmatic, theological, and political issues, and there are Christians out there who still would consider me a godless pagan because I am an idolatrous Catholic who worships the pope and Mary. Hell, Protestants and Catholics only just stopped trying to kill each other in Northern Ireland. So telling me to stand up and speak to Christians because they'll listen to me because I'm also Christian is not nearly as constructive as it sounds.
Another problem arises when you consider rifts within individual denominations. I'm Roman Catholic, and for many people, that statement raises images of people who don't like sex, who walk in lockstep with an old, out-of-touch Italian (or Polish, or German) man, and who are virulently insular. If you know me, you know that's not me. That's not a lot of Catholics. But there are Catholics who are like that. Many of the more politically-talented of us are entrenched in trying to reform our religions, like in the crisis facing the Episcopal Church over homosexuality. My father is nominally a Republican, but he's been so caught up in working for reform in his order that he doesn't have time to work for reform in his political party. My point is that the best people to speak up often have other priorities that take precedence.
So, I hear you saying to yourself, "Self, Icewolf is doing a bang up job of making excuses for Christians." I'd call it background information, but I see your point. To that end, I will make some suggestions.
Churches who oppose the "vocal minority" need to cross denominational--and even religious--lines to work together in the community. The "good" Christians have always been bigger fans of action example over rhetoric, so let's put that belief to work, so to speak. Those pesky corporal works of mercy, you know. We're never going to out-scream the other side: it's neither possible nor becoming. It's certainly un-Christian.
But, even more importantly, we must be proud of who we are on an individual level. We need to work for peace and understanding in our communities, in our country, in the political arena, and in the world, and we need to be perfectly transparent about our motives: "I'm doing this good/understanding/peaceful/constructive thing because my faith tells me it's the right thing to do." Many of us avoid saying so because we're afraid to be lumped in with the crazies. We're frightened and embarrassed by our faith in front of our political allies, so we keep it under a bushel-basket. Then we go to church, and sometimes are told we're not good Catholics, Baptists, Lutherans, what have you, so we stash our political principles under the basket, too.
Maybe it's because I come from a family of religious dissenters. I'm the latest in a long line of rabble-rousers in the Catholic Church. But I remember my confirmation. I was sprinkled, anointed, and given a new name, Brigid. I was also given a light, symbolic slap across the face by the bishop. The gesture stood for the possible persecution I must be willing to face as an adult in the Church. Jesus never promised us a rose garden--He got Gethsemane himself. But He absolutely does require us to have the courage of our convictions. All of them.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-11-01 10:29 pm (UTC)From:I said, "Are you a Christian or a Jew?" He said, "A Christian."
I said, "Me too. Protestant or Catholic?" He said, "Protestant."
I said, "Me too. What franchise?" He says, "Baptist."
I said, "Me too. Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?" He says, "Northern Baptist."
I said, "Me too. Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?" He says, "Northern Conservative Baptist."
I said, "Me too. Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist or Northern Conservative Reformed Baptist?" He says, "Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist."
I said, "Me too. Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist, Great Lakes Region, or Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist, Eastern Region?" He says, "Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist, Great Lakes Region."
I said, "Me too. Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist, Great Lakes Region, Council of 1879 or Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist, Great Lakes Region, Council of 1912?" He says, Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist, Great Lakes Region, Council of 1912."
I said, "Die, heretic!" and I pushed him over.
no subject
Date: 2006-11-01 10:50 pm (UTC)From:With "Christians", the vocal minority isn't just vocal, it's powerful. Surveys say that they're a critical demographic in a number of states which... well, by a quirk of the electoral system their votes are worth more than mine.
The Catholics, on the other hand, are oddly out of power at the moment. As a movement they're split between old economic and social ties to the Democrats and new moral ties to the Republicans. They're not the prolific proselytizers they used to be, and not in the way that the evangelical sects are now. When I read a cartoon like that, I don't think it's the Catholics most people have in mind.
I applaud your call for cross-denominational ties. The most obvious forum for that would be to make a strong tie to one political party or the other; split across the two parties their political effectiveness is dramatically diminished. But if they can effect change in both parties simultaneously, then they can win either way.
That opportunity is arising. The Republicans still want to see themselves as the moral party, but may be able to pry morality from the reactionary hands of the evangelical movement as people realize that the majority-of-the-majority is still a minority. The Democrats are fumbling for a way to accept the religious leaders of their social movements whom them embraced 40 years ago but lost when they allowed their devotion to women's rights and gay rights to push out those whose religious beliefs call for more sexual modesty.
That will be an uneasy change for both parties, and the winner will be whoever accepts it first.
no subject
Date: 2006-11-01 11:11 pm (UTC)From:My next question is why, when someone pokes at extremist Christians, there's a backlash, and when someone pokes at extremist Muslims, there's a backlash, and when someone pokes at extremist Republicans or Democrats, there's a backlash, but if someone pokes at extremist Mennonites, or extremist Jehovah's Witnesses, or extremist Bratz(tm) toy collectors, there's virtually no backlash.
Maybe it's because none of those groups can afford an Internet connection. But I kid.
I'm still wondering about this. There are some groups who I think have strong ties between their extremist wing and their moderate wing, and the moderate wing takes it personally when their extremists are raked around, because they sympathize with their extremists. ("Yes, he was a jerk, but he had a point...") Then there are groups where the moderates take it personally, but don't really sympathize with their extremists so much as they feel the other side is lumping them in unfairly. ("Yes, he was a jerk, but that's because he's taken our party line too far...")
Probably most groups have elements of both, come to think of it.
Consider the Pagans
Date: 2006-11-01 11:54 pm (UTC)From:The only reason I want to see Christian leaders condemning certain types of Christians (Fred Phelps, Pat Robertson) is because the general public expects the same thing from leaders of other established religions. It's a question of fairness, in my mind.
Yes, people should know Christians are Christians, but Christians shouldn't be afraid to admit that they are practicing, believing Christians, either. Anyone who rags on somebody for their religious beliefs oughta be piled on by their co-religionists (even if the religion is atheism), and then we'd feel freer to discuss this topic.
Re: Consider the Pagans
Date: 2006-11-02 03:22 am (UTC)From:Signed,
Liberal Catholic Feminist
Re: Consider the Pagans
Date: 2006-11-02 05:42 pm (UTC)From:If it makes you feel any better: I think Pat Robertson is a publicity-mongering jerk with more education than intellect, and Fred Phelps is a publicity-mongering violent jerk with almost no intellect whatsoever.
However, I'd consider myself agnostic now, so I don't count as a co-religionist. On that note, I will say that I was brought up Catholic, and still like the vast majority of the Catholic people I grew up with. Including the priests. Frs. Trebtosky, Raphael, and Albert; all wonderful men. I'd take them out to dinner now that I can afford it, and even if I couldn't; I owe them for the guidance they provided.
well said.
Date: 2006-11-01 11:35 pm (UTC)From:Now I am going to go smack Pat Robertson.