Bias against Christians?

[Tux]

I seen this: http://www.witchvox.com/wren/wn_detail.html?id=12217

In the article, a guy said that it is necessary since there is a bias against Christians. WTF?!

So, Christians, is America biased against Christians or is it just some Christians are upset they can't get their way every time?

[Igel]

1. Depends where you are, how you define "bias", and how

you define "Christian."

In my grad program, to declare yourself evangelical was to have faculty look at you like you were insane, and fellow graduate students increase the number of "Xian jokes" they told. Couldn't imagine what would happen to a student who declared him/herself fundie. (The student her missionary work came in real handy during a course on medieval literature.)

[Tux]

2. By Christian

I mean the basic definition: Jesus was born, lived, taught good ideas, died for people's sins, resurrected, went to Heaven, Bible must be read, and faith in God/Jesus will help you in life and to get into Heaven.

[EC]

18. If you mean one only follows God/Jesus for help in life or get into Heaven

that's not true faith.

[imenja]

31. what constitutes faith is a complex question

and subject to a great deal of theological debate. To imagine that only you have the true answer and to pass judgment on another's personal faith is profoundly arrogant. Most of us know enough not to pretend we have the answer to such questions.

[EC]

32. no answer....just the literal meaning of faith is not expecting any

reward for believing,...just the believe beyond proof...But it is in the Christian bible not to have faith, because you expect any reward, or the only reward you will get is from man not God.



I have no answers, still don't know why we are here, or what is a God, rather a God is good or bad, etc. I'm not one of the faithful because I question...

[imenja]

36. you probably shouldn't pass judgment on others then

and tell someone else what they believe is not faith. It simply isn't right. These are deeply held, personal issues.

[EC]

42. No Judgment, and faith itself is not personal

As I said the literal meaning of "faith" is to hold a believe without question or without reward. Maybe instead of faith, the believe is personal, but faith is not...it is a definitive.

[imenja]

44. says who?

You? That is your definition, yet you concede you yourself do not have faith.

Websters defines faith as: 1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : LOYALTY b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs

Faith is adherence to a religious or other belief system. Theologians define in it many different ways. How one choses to define and experience that faith is between God and the individual. To claim someone's beliefs do not constitute true faith is indeed judgmental. It is like Jerry Falwell condemning those who reject his worldview as unbelievers.

[imenja]

4. agree

In many academic institutions, religion is seen as insanity. I've heard faculty refer to students as troubled because they were Christian. It's a surprising narrow view and can't be described as anything other than prejudice. Of course, academia doesn't mirror the society at large.

[Az]

7. The trouble with acedemia

is they tend to embrace or be the cutting edge of social progress. This is exactly the opposite of what fundamentalist systems value. It is change versus stasis. An unstoppable object vs an immovable object. Needless to say they don't see eye to eye.

[imenja]

13. there is nothing cutting edge about bigotry

It is as old as human kind itself. One would think education would encourage a degree of intellectual enlightenment, but sadly that is not always the case. Prejudice against Christians is not the only form of bigotry demonstrated: sexism and anti-semitism are also on full display in academic institutions, though these days the former more than the latter.

Also, fundamentalists comprise only a small portion of all American Christians. To conflate the two is like imagining all Muslims want to blow up or behead civilians.

[Tux]

16. College

At the college I attended, at the time, students were open and respectful. Except those that couldn't let go of high school. Some were wary of Christians that talked about Jesus a lot but the worst I got was a Christian asking me to join his group and followed me to the men's room.

[Az]

23. Have to consider how such hatred comes about

At one time it was considered normal and expected to consider blacks barely human. At one time most of society considered women to be chattel. But society moved forward. It figured out new ways of looking at things.

The trouble is that not all parts of society move forward at the same rate. Society moves forward by each individual within it coming to understand new truths. But as not everyone in the society comes to the same position at the same rate there is a constant struggle within the society.

Usually the rate of absorbtion of these new concepts is consistant. But occaisionally some new concepts run into institutionalized beliefs backed by religious doctrine. When these collide generally the society will override the resistant group. But as more and more instances of conflict arise from more groups the resistance begins to slow or halt progress.

This resistance from these groups surfaces as hatred and prejudice. From within their way of thinking it has always been thus. They simply have not embraced the new ways of thinking or understanding.

[Igel]

24. In this case it has nothing to do with her not embracing new

ways of thinking. She was stupid, a jerk, foolish, and backwards ... in spite of the fact she was admitted to a grad program at a major research university with full funding, and her insight into part of the subject material far exceeded the other students'. Still, they were enlightened, she was the idiot.

When they needed a student rep, she volunteered.

When the smarter students needed help, she helped them.

Even then, the response from the enlightened ones was mockery and disgust.

When mockery and insults cause somebody to leave the room crying, I'm loath to think of those doing the mocking and insulting as having absorbed any kind of worthwhile change. Change can be good. Change can be bad.

[Az]

26. People don't necissarily know where they form their standards from

Thus people on the cutting edge of moral thinking look at those who have not caught up as bumpkins or backwater dunces. Part of how society brings resistant groups up to speed is through peer pressure and ridicule. Nothing nice about it. Just social forces playing tug of war as they have forever.

Unfortunately for those within resistant groups seeking higher education such communities are typically supportive if not outright the source of progressive notions of morality. There is going to be friction.

[Igel]

27. So maybe these forward thinkers should maybe think about

being a bit retrograde. Tolerance. Compassion. Understanding. I can see why "progressive" thinking would eschew them.

Not cutting edge, no doubt: they don't draw enough blood.

[Az]

28. Lets put it in perspective

Maybe you should be tolerant of people hating blacks or treating women as property.

Of course you are going to be upset about such positions. You have internalized the notion that blacks and women have equal rights. Its natural to you. The same is true for progressives concerning homosexuals and other recently adjusted moral considerations. Exposure to individuals that have not changed this view comes as shocking. They are going to react strongly because they see such behaviour as unreasonable. They are going to see it as ignorant. And ignorance is just uninformed. So they will try to inform them. And this is where the resistance rears its ugly head.

[imenja]

30. thought as progress

I'm not sure how your point relates to bigotry among academics. Are you saying Christians are benighted because they haven't accepted "new" ways of thinking? Are you arguing that academics lag behind the rest of culture, or something else?

Human ideas have not developed in the steady evolutionary manner you describe. The notion of Africans and African-Americans as less than human was a nineteenth-century notion that evolved in the United States in response to the ideas unleashed by the American Revolution that "all men are created equal." How could Americans reconcile holding a large portion of the society in bondage? The new disciplines of science were marshaled to justify exclusion based on pseudo-biological grounds by insisting that Africans were closer to apes than humans. On one hand, the Enlightenment made possible ideas of political equality, while on the other the idea of man as a product of nature rather than as children of God, and the idea of knowledge as achieved through reason rather than divine revelation, opened the door to the most virulent and fully articulated ideas of racism in the Western world. Prior to then, inequality and hierarchies were seen as natural. Prejudice to be sure existed, but slaveholders did not imagine their slaves to be less than human. (George Frederickson discusses these ideological changes in a number of his works). Furthermore, masters in Latin America never legally defined slaves as chattel, even as they treated them as such.

Ideas justifying domination and exclusion have changed over the centuries. While religion represented the primary marker in the pre-modern world, race emerged in it's place. Human history is not marked by a process of steady improvement. Our current government uses "democracy" as it's ideology to justify imperialism. It's conquests, I believe, are no more enlightened than the sixteenth-century Spanish. The language and tools of conquest, however, have changed.

If you mean to imply that atheism is inherently more advanced than religious thought, you neglect much of the human experience. Life transcends the material world. Whether one employs religion or philosophy to understand our human and collective consciousness, that effort is of enormous importance. To acknowledge the material world alone, as science in it's current forms does, is to ignore what it means to be human.

[Az]

33. Responses

It is not all Christians that argue for fixed notions of morality. But there are factions that do wish to remain fixed.

Acedemics tend to be on the cutting edge. Not lagging behind. As such they will challenge peoples preconceptions when exposed to their ideas. Thus a source of stress for those that do not embrace change or are resistant to particular moral shifts.

The plight of Africans has been a complex road. While perhaps accepted as human they were certainly seen as uncivilized and not deserving of rights of civilized individuals.

True reason and limited understanding were utilized to justify many things. But so to was the bible. Society is naturally resistant to change. For a miriad of reasons. Its not just religious doctrine. It can be as simple as basic comfort levels with the status quo.

But eventually various social forces overwhelm these positions and the society moves forward. Various factions for numerous reasons continue to resist. Some persist long beyond reason.

I meant no implications about atheism. Atheists are by no means organized enough to create much of any social force within this particular society. Any effort of the atheists would be too unfocused. Indeed the bulk of advances have been made by groups and individuals of belief. I don't know where you pulled the implication that atheists were somehow champions of moral advancement. We have no such claim. We may be supporters of reasoned approach to morality but so to are many other groups. We are just a voice in the chorus.

[imenja]

34. the point

I and the other poster were trying to impress is that academics are not always on the cutting edge. They are subject to prejudice and bigotry as other segments of society are. It just happens that anti-religious sentiment is the most prevalent form of prejudice in universities. I see nothing to justify or explain in it. I am not Jewish or Muslim but don't believe I am more advanced or cutting edge because I happen not to be. Bigotry is small mind, no matter who articulates it. Dressing it in fancy packaging, ideological justification, makes it all the more unforgivable, not less.
Forgive me if I am misunderstanding your post, but I don't see another explanation to your comment about academics being "cutting edge" in response to my remarks.

[Az]

35. You seem to be presuming that academics aren't religious

Also the notion of cutting edge is not so clear. Academics merely tend to be on the cutting edge. But they are not alone. It can come from many different sources. And sometimes the society moves in retrograde leaving the academics and others that support progressive attitudes in the vanguard.

[imenja]

37. no

some are religious. But the fact is there is a great deal of anti-religious sentiment in universities. In goes beyond personal beliefs to outright prejudice. That was the reason behind igil's story and my remarks.
As for "cutting edge." By definition, only a few people are on the cutting edge. In any field, most work is fairly ordinary. A few stand out in their level of innovation. So some academics are cutting edge, but the majority are not.

[Az]

38. A lot of bias goes on in many levels of society

Yes some acedamics are insensitive to the religious people. But I bet you can't name any nonreligious political leaders. This is not to say such behaviour is correct. It is just to point out that there is room to work on all sides of the issue.

I suspect that much of the pressure at the collegiate level comes from inflexibility. College exists to challenge and change students. A student that resists change is going to draw the ire of the teachers.

[imenja]

43. such behavior is inexcusable

and I never implied that prejudice was unique to academia. Rather, it is harder for me to understand in that context because of the higher level of educational privilege. The original post asked about prejudice against Christians. Igill noted it depended on which environment one was in and gave the example of universities. I agreed. That was the extent of it. I don't know of another
environment where such views proliferate, though that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. There is no question that conservative Christians have seized political power to the detriment of all of us. Religion has become a commodity that politicians market, while faith and reflection have been forsaken.

[Az]

45. I suspect it comes from the disintigration of the social contract

Our society depends on a couple of things. One tolerating and allowing other views to have a voice in our community. Tied to this is the notion of dialog between the various positions. These two factors work hand in hand to create an enlightened progressive society.

Unfortunately if some faction within this arraingement does not wish to play be these rules they create disharmony. In such a circumstance the communication breaks down. Thus each group tends to withdraw into their own niche. With no dialog between them they form their own ideas independent of each other. They also form opinions of the other groups that may not be accurate.

When members of these groups interact with each other for various reasons their logic and thinking may be quite alien to each other. Because they have not had contact or established an understanding of each other's positions these differences will be pronounced. Depending on in who's area of dominance the interaction takes place in governs who will be looked down on as illinformed.

[Az]

41. I would like to add one thing

I would gladdly trade the level of bias that seems to be present against Christians in universities for the oppression that atheists are met with in our society. I personally have been attacked, my property vandalized, stalked, and repeatedly told I and others like me are the scourge of our society all based on our beliefs. So this may explain why some take the protestations of Christians complainging about conditions in universities with a bit less compassion than might be warranted. No excuse for bias. But understand, you don't tell an oppressed people they should have compassion for what is comparitively a minor inconveinience contrasted to the level of oppression they face on a daily basis.

[EC]

19. ? Are you saying that the fundamentalist system wants to stay as they

were in the Middle Ages, just as we are accusing the Islamics of doing?

[Cornus]

11. Evangelical vs Fundie

Is there a difference? I thought they were sort of the same.

[Igel]

25. It's sort of like not knowing the difference between Japanese and Chinese.

It's real, but if you're far enough away, they look the same.

Evangelicals believe (in general) that the Gospel should be preached.

Fundamentalists believe that the Bible is necessary and alone sufficient for instructing one's beliefs, and the Bible is infallible. Most are literalists.

One can be evangelical, fundamentalist, both, or neither.

[MemphisTiger]

39. Well put

[realisticphish]

3. as a christian

i think there is no bias against christians. its just that fundies hate not having their own way. they can't understand the difference between "secular" and "we hate christians we love satan hahahahahaha"


:hippie: The Incorrigible Democrat

[Az]

5. I spent some time with some strongly conservative fundamentalists

To find out what I could about exactly this issue.

They truly feel that not being allowed to press their beliefs through the political systems is an infringement of their rights. They believe that not being able to convert others or have access to the school systems is oppression.

Furthermore the progressive attitudes presented on TV are further declared to be oppressive in nature. That other views are being forced on them and notions of tolerating what they consider to be evil is repelent to them.

Here is the problem. They want a fixed unchanging society. But they exist in a dynamic society that in general is rather progressive. This creates conflict and for the last 200 years they have been losing. Time keeps marching forward and society keeps embracing new ideals and new definitions of morality. It can be quite threatening to a people that believe the end all and be all of morality was written in stone several thousand years ago.

[Tux]

9. I agree

I did notice that during the 90's, as we developed more technology, furthered science, and non-Christian religions grew, more Christian groups appeared. Plus they fully supported Dole and basicly said they want an unchanging society (impossible now) and force their views onto us.

For the fundies, I don't see how they can feel oppressed since they have their own media and can write Congress as we can. I think it's more for a theocracy so they can get revenge for Scopes Monkey Trial since the nation thought they were idiots at the time.

[EC]

20. Look at the Amish, I don't believe they feel threatened by

society or have a problem with practicing their religious choices. When you stayed with these fundies did you ask them why they didn't just merely turn off the TV or change the channels that offended them?

[Az]

21. The Amish voluntarily withdrew from society

Most fundamentalists are still part of society and seek to have influence on it. In fact they see it as their job.

[EC]

22. That's what I dislike, it is not their job, if they truly believe

they must know about Free Will, it's each persons choice in which way they choose for their souls....If they are TRULY insulted and threatened by society, they should withdraw and form their own communities...

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tux]

10. Thanks

Freeper? Are you drunk?

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[imenja]

14. based on spelling?

How ridiculous. Just ignore the poster's comments if you believe them unworthy of your attention.

[Tux]

15. Ignorance

And we wonder why conservatives think lowly of liberals. As do some liberals as well.

[Kagemusha]

8. They're discarding the legacy of Jefferson and Madison

in favor of the principles upheld by the House of Saud..!?!?!

Are any of you reading this going to seriously try and argue with me that the religious freedom founded by Jefferson and Madison is un-American but mixing church and state like Saudi Arabia and Qatar and Kuwait and hell, for good measure, Afghanistan under the Taliban, is being true to American values!?!?!

Pinch me. I need to wake up!

[EC]

17. I as a liberal I don't have a bias against Christians, I have a bias

againt the "pretending or false piousness". I don't know but in my Bible it says to pray in private, not to make a big deal out of it:

Matthew 6:5-6: "And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men....when thou prayest, enter into thy closet and when thou has shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret...."

Jesus condemns prayers in situations where other people are present. For example: In religious settings like churches or synagogues,
In a private or public school,
In a legislature or municipal government meeting, or
In the street or other public place.
Isaac went into the field..., Christ to a mountain, Peter to a housetop."

"Jesus....decries giving alms openly, praying in public...Jesus points out that if it is human acclaim that is wanted, then...that is all the reward that is likely to come."

Mark 6:41: "And when he had taken the five loaves and the two fishes, he looked up to heaven, and blessed, and brake the loaves, and gave them to his disciples to set before them; and the two fishes divided he among them all."
Matthew 14:19: "...took the five loaves, and the two fishes, and looking up to heaven, he blessed, and brake, and gave the loaves to his disciples, and the disciples to the multitude." (KJV)
Luke 9:16: "Then he took the five loaves and the two fishes, and looking up to heaven, he blessed them, and brake, and gave to the disciples to set before the multitude."
John 6:11: "And Jesus took the loaves; and when he had given thanks, he distributed to the disciples, and the disciples to them that were set down; and likewise of the fishes as much as they would."

He gave thanks for the meal BUT when prayed after the meal:


Mark 6:46: "And when he had sent them away, he departed into a mountain to pray."
Matthew 14:23: "And when he had sent the multitudes away, he went up into a mountain apart to pray: and when the evening was come, he was there alone." (KJV)
Luke 9:18: "And it came to pass, as he was alone praying, his disciples were with him..."
John 6:15: "...he departed again into a mountain himself alone."


Matthew 14:23: Jesus went up on the mountain by himself to pray.
Matthew 26:36-44: Jesus went with three disciples, left them behind and went further to pray alone. This is the well known passage in which his disciples fell asleep at Gethsemane, just before Jesus' arrest and execution.
Mark 1:35: Jesus is went to a solitary place to pray.
Luke 3:21: This passage describes how Jesus was baptized and was in prayer when the Holy Ghost descended. Unfortunately, this passage does not describe how and where Jesus was praying.
Luke 5:16: Jesus is described as often going to lonely places to pray by himself
Luke 6:12: Jesus withdrew to a mountainside to pray. Verse 13 implies that he was alone at the time.
Luke 9:19: Jesus was praying alone, with his disciples in the vicinity.
Luke 22:41-43: Jesus withdrew from his disciples "about a stone's throw" to pray by himself.
John 16, 17: These chapters are ambiguous about the circumstances of Jesus' prayer just before his arrest. He first talked to his disciples; then he prayed, then he went with his disciples across the Kidron valley. It is not clear where the disciples were situated when Jesus prayed. But if he was consistent with the pattern described in other passages, he would have left the disciples behind, and prayed in private.

It would appear that Jesus engaged in private prayer, away from other people. His actions might be interpreted as showing his disapproval of public prayer.


Isn't all this in THEIR bible?

[nemo137]

29. as i once read on another messageboard:

"Christians have had it so good for so long in this country, they don't know what persecution feels like."

Guy who wrote that was a Christian, too, fwiw.

[MemphisTiger]

40. I'm a Christian and I don't feel any BIAS

There are those that don't agree with me (usually on this message board), but it hasn't stopped me from expressing myself. However, I also live in the South, where you are almost looked at like a leper if you are not a Christian.

[Tux]

46. Yup

I feel like I'm subhuman to Christians since I'm a Buddhist and atteneded a godless, liberal, baby-killing university in Michigan. So much for moving for a better job. May as well move to India....

[Dervill Crow]

47. I don't think so.

I was raised to think "religious fanatics" were stupid, but I also thought that if you weren't Jewish you were Christian.

I work with an amazing number of people who actually do place a value on others based on whether or not they are born-again Christian; for instance, selecting to do business with companies that display that stupid fish in their Yellow Pages listing because they are sure they will be treated honestly.

Where I live there seems to be more bias against non-Christians, but Oregon has a huge number of what Christians call "the unchurched," so the Christians may just be overcompensating.