Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

MineralMan

(146,192 posts)
Sun May 27, 2018, 11:53 AM May 2018

If 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.

37 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
If someone publicly claims to be an adherent to a religion, (Original Post) MineralMan May 2018 OP
Open ended statement, MM. Mc Mike May 2018 #1
Yes, it is an open-ended statement. MineralMan May 2018 #2
That was an observation, not an attempted critique. Mc Mike May 2018 #3
I didn't take it as a critique. MineralMan May 2018 #5
This is a majority Protestant country, though not over 50% of the pop., I don't think. Mc Mike May 2018 #6
Do not confuse your own perception with reality. guillaumeb May 2018 #8
So it is with all of us. MineralMan May 2018 #10
Which is true for everyone Major Nikon May 2018 #12
Of course, everyone has his or her own opinion Mariana May 2018 #19
Some are more relevant than others Major Nikon May 2018 #23
That person reflects to you what you have wasupaloopa May 2018 #4
So if a public atheist makes misogynistic remarks, guillaumeb May 2018 #7
Atheism is not a religion. It has no doctrines, MineralMan May 2018 #9
You ignored the point. I understand. guillaumeb May 2018 #11
Oh please, you haven't a clue what the point of the OP was Major Nikon May 2018 #13
To help you out, here is the actual post: guillaumeb May 2018 #14
atheism is not a religion but you know that already nt msongs May 2018 #15
And your statement fails to address the point. eom guillaumeb May 2018 #17
One more time for the cheap seats... Major Nikon May 2018 #21
For the win...lmao...love it! Nt Docreed2003 May 2018 #26
If ability to cut and paste was matched guillaumeb May 2018 #27
Rephrase it more generally and you see that it only might be true. Igel May 2018 #16
Well said. Nothing to add to that. eom guillaumeb May 2018 #18
I think it goes the other way Lordquinton May 2018 #20
Sometimes you don't have to look too far for the examples Major Nikon May 2018 #22
Dawkins is nuanced? guillaumeb May 2018 #28
"mansplaining" Major Nikon May 2018 #29
I could cite quite a few from Dawkins, guillaumeb May 2018 #31
That's just what a mansplainer would say in defense of misogyny Major Nikon May 2018 #32
No, it's not. Lordquinton May 2018 #35
I the spirit of the post, guillaumeb May 2018 #36
He is a prominent atheist Lordquinton Jun 2018 #37
If somebody claims to be a member of X, does that claim firmly attach X to the person's behavior? struggle4progress May 2018 #24
You have it backwards Major Nikon May 2018 #30
If someone self-identifies as a scientist, then behaves badly, does that tarnish scientists? struggle4progress May 2018 #33
You still have it backwards Major Nikon May 2018 #34
The Bible warns about religious "hypocrites." And? Bretton Garcia May 2018 #25

Mc Mike

(9,106 posts)
1. Open ended statement, MM.
Sun May 27, 2018, 12:11 PM
May 2018

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

(146,192 posts)
2. Yes, it is an open-ended statement.
Sun May 27, 2018, 12:13 PM
May 2018

You have stated your position. I read it. There is a range of levels of adherence.

Mc Mike

(9,106 posts)
3. That was an observation, not an attempted critique.
Sun May 27, 2018, 12:16 PM
May 2018

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

(146,192 posts)
5. I didn't take it as a critique.
Sun May 27, 2018, 12:19 PM
May 2018

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

(9,106 posts)
6. This is a majority Protestant country, though not over 50% of the pop., I don't think.
Sun May 27, 2018, 12:32 PM
May 2018

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)
8. Do not confuse your own perception with reality.
Sun May 27, 2018, 12:47 PM
May 2018

This perception of yours is merely your own personal view on what is real.

Mariana

(14,849 posts)
19. Of course, everyone has his or her own opinion
Sun May 27, 2018, 04:28 PM
May 2018

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

(36,814 posts)
23. Some are more relevant than others
Sun May 27, 2018, 11:24 PM
May 2018

When someone claims Dawkins is a misogynist and the Pope is a hero, it's not hard to sort the wheat from the chaff.

guillaumeb

(42,641 posts)
7. So if a public atheist makes misogynistic remarks,
Sun May 27, 2018, 12:45 PM
May 2018

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

(146,192 posts)
9. Atheism is not a religion. It has no doctrines,
Sun May 27, 2018, 12:59 PM
May 2018

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.

Major Nikon

(36,814 posts)
13. Oh please, you haven't a clue what the point of the OP was
Sun May 27, 2018, 01:20 PM
May 2018

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)
14. To help you out, here is the actual post:
Sun May 27, 2018, 01:28 PM
May 2018
If 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.


"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...……………..

guillaumeb

(42,641 posts)
27. If ability to cut and paste was matched
Mon May 28, 2018, 02:45 PM
May 2018

by an understanding of the actual post, what a day that would be.

Igel

(35,191 posts)
16. Rephrase it more generally and you see that it only might be true.
Sun May 27, 2018, 02:09 PM
May 2018

"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.

Lordquinton

(7,886 posts)
20. I think it goes the other way
Sun May 27, 2018, 05:24 PM
May 2018

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.

guillaumeb

(42,641 posts)
28. Dawkins is nuanced?
Mon May 28, 2018, 02:46 PM
May 2018

So his many examples of misogyny represent nuance?

Is that what they call mansplaining?

Major Nikon

(36,814 posts)
29. "mansplaining"
Mon May 28, 2018, 04:00 PM
May 2018

“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.

Major Nikon

(36,814 posts)
32. That's just what a mansplainer would say in defense of misogyny
Mon May 28, 2018, 09:12 PM
May 2018

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)
35. No, it's not.
Mon May 28, 2018, 11:27 PM
May 2018

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.

Lordquinton

(7,886 posts)
37. He is a prominent atheist
Fri Jun 1, 2018, 07:00 PM
Jun 2018

but he doesn't represent it like the Pope represents catholicism, if that's where you're trying to get at.

struggle4progress

(118,034 posts)
24. If somebody claims to be a member of X, does that claim firmly attach X to the person's behavior?
Mon May 28, 2018, 06:56 AM
May 2018

The conclusion seems rather sweeping

If someone self-identifies as a scientist, then behaves badly, does that tarnish scientists?

Major Nikon

(36,814 posts)
34. You still have it backwards
Mon May 28, 2018, 10:18 PM
May 2018

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)
25. The Bible warns about religious "hypocrites." And?
Mon May 28, 2018, 07:41 AM
May 2018

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.

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Religion»If someone publicly claim...