Reply #32: Sometimes it might be appropriate to mention another person's religion

[MikeH]

I have been thinking about this, and I do have to take seriously the charges of bigotry and a double standard. I think I have some things to say about this.

First of all, in regard to what Zeb said:

Or if the post had been by an Atheist, and someone said: "Just so everyone knows, this poster is an unbeliever."

Actually if the boy's paintings had a religious theme, or were religious in nature, and someone known to be an atheist had made a derogatory comment similar to what Zeb made about the art quality of the boy's paintings, then it would definitely be quite appropriate for somebody to point out that the comment was made by someone who was an atheist (and thus very likely not an unbiased judge).


Second, it should be noted that there is a very important difference between fundamentalist Christianity and the other religions that Zeb mentioned. To the best of my knowledge a Jew or a neopagan does not insist that his or her religion is the right religion, the "truth", the one "right path", and that everybody ought to be a Jew or a neopagan, and that anybody who is not a Jew or a neopagan is wrong (and is in big trouble in the next life).

However fundamentalist Christians, such as Zeb in many of his posts in the R/T forum, insist that Jesus is the "only way", and that any other path is wrong, and that anybody who does not "come to Jesus" in this lifetime is in big trouble in the next life. Somebody who believes that as one of the tenets of his or her religion, and repeatedly makes a point of saying so, definitely SHOULD be open to much greater scrutiny than somebody who feels that his or her religion is his or her own private business (and who does not insist that anybody not adhering to such religion is on the wrong path). If a person makes a point of saying that his or her particular religion is the "one way" and the "truth", then anything that reflects poorly on that person's religion, or on the person as an adherent of such religion, is fair game for being pointed out.

It has always been my understanding that charity and kindness were important Christian virtues, and important hallmarks of Christian behavior and Christian living. Zeb made a very uncharitable and very unkind comment about the art quality of the paintings of a SEVEN YEAR OLD BOY, calling his paintings "schlock" and "the kind of stuff that they sell at Holiday Inn for $35 per original oil painting". If that is not unkind or uncharitable, I do not know what is.

Zeb might be right in saying that the boy's paintings do not have the quality of those of a "grand master" or an "old master". (Personal disclosure: I am neither an artist nor an art connoisseur, and I know next to nothing about judging the quality of a painting or work of art, or about what does and what does not constitute a great work of art.) However he could have said so in a way that was charitable and respectful to the boy. His disagreement is with GROWN-UPS who are say that the boy's paintings like those of a "grand master" or an "old master". That being the case, it was completely uncalled, uncharitable, and unChristian for Zeb to apply the term "schlock" to the work of the BOY.

Since Zeb in the R/T forum repeatedly makes the point that he is a Christian, AND that Christ is the "one true way" (and any other way is wrong), it is quite appropriate to point out here that Zeb is a fundamentalist Christian, and that his first comment in this thread was very uncharitable and unChristian, and reflects very poorly either on Christianity, or on Zeb as an adherent of Christianity, or perhaps on both.