dheddle
Posts: 545
Joined: Sep. 2007
|
| Quote (Louis @ Jan. 28 2011,12:10) | | Quote (dheddle @ Jan. 28 2011,16:32) | | Quote (Bing @ Jan. 28 2011,10:12) | | Quote (dheddle @ Jan. 28 2011,09:14) | | What is relevant is the fact that the percentage of Christians who advocate murder and property destruction is negligible. |
What is not negligible is the percentage of moderate Christians who, while they might disagree with the extremists, do not vigorously and publicly disabuse the extremists of their views.
Silence =/= tacit approval but it might be interpreted that way. |
Really. Funny, I hear it all the time. You must not be listening. Whenever there is one of these incidents there will be all manner of Christians denouncing the violence.
Do you also think not enough Muslims have spoken out against Islamic terrorism, and so their silence is tantamount to tacit approval?
This "oh you don't scream loud enough therefore you are part of the problem" is a) wrong b) cheap and c) a red herring. |
1) Yes I think "moderate" muslims are far too silent too. These guys and gals should be the first people to speak out. Nice fatwa envy Heddle. This, from you, was spectacularly pathetic, do better and do better fast. Eurgh, I feel dirty just entertaining THAT piece of bigotry from you.
2) Silence is a part of the problem and is very far from a red herring or cheap. Your denial and defensiveness are beneath you. One of the major failings of ALL of us (this is a set that includes me by the way) is that we rarely get up onto our hind legs and speak or act when it's necessary. The pressures of life are sufficient to guarantee this, it's not a mark of wanton hypocrisy or cowardice. People have bills to pay and work to do. It's normal, banale, bog standard, dull. But then so much that is genuinely "evil" is. It's inaction that holds up desired change more than conspiracy against said change.
There's a cracking example of this on Pharyngula today about public school teachers in the USA preferring to avoid controversy by bowdlerising their teaching of biology. These people contribute very strongly to the problem. Go read the paper (and the many more like it).
Learn the lessons of history, Heddle, or else you are doomed to repeat them.
3) And I don't agree with this "I hear it all the time" from you either, sorry. Look at your own massive defensiveness here. Instead of "hmmm maybe I am (partly) my brother's keeper" (to butcher a bit of bible) you are lashing out at people pointing out that the majority of people in your country are "moderate" christians, and the majority of people are silent on these issues (at best).
The opposite of "it's rarely heard by comparison to the numbers of people available to shout" is not "I hear it all the time". Three hundred odd million people in the USA, the majority of whom are christian, the majority of whom (if your claim is true, and for the sake of argument let's not question it) don't support the actions of these whackos, you know I reckon some of them might be in positions of power. Positions of influence in the media. And yet by comparison the relative silence is deafening. The Palins and Limbaughs and Haggards and Becks and Phelpses etc all get their press time. Take a moment to listen to what these people are shovelling 'cos moderate it ain't. All that access to the tools of power by the moderates and very little condemnation comes forth.
This applies to EVERYONE by the way, on issues as far and wide as religion, war, foreign policy, healthcare yadda yadda yadda. The tendancy not to rock the boat or stick one's head above the parapet is universal, so don't feel like you and yours are uniquely singled out. However, don't feel that you and yours are uniquely invulnerable, you, just like we, ain't.
Louis |
None of those you mentioned (Palin, Beck, Limbaugh, Phelps [really, Phelps?]) are representatives of the Christian community. In fact--as far as evangelical Protestants are concerned there is no such position. We have no pope or archbishop of Canterbury. If the media are going to those you mention for official Christian reaction—then they are going to blatherers without poprtfolio.
And exactly how are we supposed to scream and holler? Why don’t you sneak into a garden-variety evangelical church after one of these incidents? See if the pastor denounces the incident from the pulpit, or see if he rubs his hands together and tells the flock: remember to *pretend* to be horrified!.
If you actually ask someone who is influential in the evangelical Christian community—you might consider someone like John Piper. He has enormous influence—infinitely more than Sarah Palin or James Dobson . Do the media go to Piper (who, while being pro-life has in no uncertain terms condemned such violence?) No, they go to people like Palin or especially someone who might make an outrageous statement. And even so I suspect both Palin and Dobson, two of the worst representatives for Christianity you can imagine, would both denounce the violence.
There is probably a similar problem in the Muslim world. Going to an everyday Muslim and hearing him denounce terrorism is not going to get you picked up by the networks.
--------------
Mysticism is a rational enterprise. Religion is not. The mystic has recognized something about the nature of consciousness prior to thought, and this recognition is susceptible to rational discussion. The mystic has reason for what he believes, and these reasons are empirical. --Sam Harris
|
