A screen shot of various Jesus memes captured on a Google search.
Oh, poor moderate Christians, the right-wing has eaten Christianity, and no one pays attention to the good Christians, oh no.
The Christian right in America has dozens of politicians and mega-pastors broadcasting its beliefs. Meanwhile, more moderate Christians hardly make the media radar.
[…]
Moderate and progressive Christian activism doesn’t make headlines and it’s certainly not clickbait. The basic goodness in my corner of Christianity garners pretty much no mainstream media attention. Crazy gets more clicks, so the extremists get all the airplay. The progressive message needs a signal boost.
Once I started posting Jesus memes, I realized I wasn’t facing anti-Christian bias on the part of my friends, but rather cluelessness. They had formulated their ideas about modern Christianity from what the media was telling them. To them, “Christian” equaled global-warming denier and homophobe. Was I one of those people, they wondered? They needed assurances that I didn’t see faith and science as mutually exclusive, or even faith and common sense. It was up to me to inform them that I was down with Bill Nye, not Lou Sheldon.
Yes, yes, people are just absolutely clueless about Christianity. And of course, all that nasty, judgmental Christianity that gets all the airplay, why it’s not at all real, right? What’s important about those nasty beliefs isn’t that they are being pushed into law everywhere, is that poor, moderate Christians aren’t getting equal time. I’d like to see a moderate Christian think past their own nose, and come to the full realization that they are the foundation upon which nasty, hateful, judgmental Christianity rests. If the poor, downtrodden moderate Christians want to be taken for something other than people who happily spread poison about, perhaps you should stop whining about memes, and do something that matters, like rise up against your brethren. Take a stand. Something relevant, something more than weakly declaring “but I’m a good Christian!” on social media.
The #notallchristians made a show. Not a good one. So, moderate Christians, where are all your grass roots campaigns? Where is the activism to take back Christianity? Where are the ads? Where are the billboards? Where are the protests? Hello? As I pointed out to #notallchristians, Atheists do those things. Satanists do those things. Various Humanist groups do those things. When are all the moderate Christians going to step up? Put those supposed values where your mouth is, please.
Well this is my first comment. Apologies if it’s a long one. Please correct me if I’m wrong here, but my impression is that you’ve experienced a very fundamentalist form of Christianity. My impression -- and it’s solely based on what you’ve written here -- is that your familiarity with this form of Christianity has led you to make assumptions about ALL Christians. And those assumptions have led you to make two particular points that I can’t agree with.
*
As my name suggests, I’m a British Atheist from a largely Christian society and family. This means that I disagree with my peers on whether the nebulous being described by the vague concept of “God” exists. On many other subjects we may agree or disagree, depending on the individuals. In my largely Christian group of family, friends and acquaintances, I know one homophobe (who’s not a churchgoer) and no global warming deniers. All of the Christians I know range from left-wing to mild-right-wing on the political spectrum. And most of them are ordinary, kind, decent people who would look at you as though you were crazy if you suggested that the “Christian Right of America” spoke for them in any way.
*
I’ve read the article, and its author talks about how the voices of the “moderate” Christians have been drowned out by the extremists in the mainstream media. I agree with this, just as I agree that moderate Atheists, Muslims, and various other groups, have been drowned out by their extremist counterparts. Why? Because “religious group raises £10,000 for disaster relief” is not news that sells advertising space or clicks, whereas “Muslims arrested in terror plot” or “Christian family throws son out of home for being homosexual” is. (There are all kinds of unfortunate reasons why these particular articles get so many “views”, but that’s a whole different subject; the point is that “extremists”, by definition, don’t speak for the majority.)
*
I also find your idea that a group of people have some kind of moral duty to decry another group of people, who might share the same label but who might have nothing else in common, extremely troubling. And this doesn’t just apply to Christians. To switch the context around: there are a lot of prominent Atheist voices in the anti-vaccination lobby, a cause that I find obnoxious (to say the least). Is it my “duty” to publicly speak out against these people just because they label themselves “Atheist” and so do I? I don’t think so. I wouldn’t support them, obviously; but I’ve never claimed that they speak for me, just as many Christians have never claimed that the “American Christian Right” speaks for them.
troubledbritishatheist:
You’re wrong on both counts.
Y’know, when atheists do the same thing, it’s not generally news either, unless someone goes out of their way to make it news. There’s a hint in there, try to pick it up.
Oh, fuck that noise with bells on. For years now, I’ve been decrying the sleazy, nasty element of various atheist and skeptic groups. Of course there’s an ethical obligation to do so. For every single asshole you provide cover for, yes, you need to answer for that. What good are your ethics and principles if you simply turn your back, lend a blind eye? No, that reasoning does not work. If you want to sit on your ass and pretend “those people” don’t speak for you, have at it, and be at peace knowing you could help make a change, but chose not to do so.
*spits*
But isn’t that exactly what the author of this article is suggesting here? She’s protesting that the Christian voices aren’t representative of hers. Whether you agree or disagree with her -- and you’ve made your position pretty clear on that one -- the author of this article is saying that the “Christian Right of America” is a voice that she doesn’t like but that claims to represent a group she’s a part of. She’s not “sitting on her ass” here. She’s saying that the “nasty, hateful, judgemental” Christians don’t speak for her.
Actually, that’s something that I agree with you on: if every Christian who felt the same way said the same thing, it’d be a pretty rousing cry against bigotry. Which makes me more puzzled as to why you object to it.
“I’d like to see a moderate Christian think past their own nose, and come to the full realization that they are the foundation upon which nasty, hateful, judgmental Christianity rests.”
Got any evidence at all for this assertion? I don’t think any of my -- how did I describe them? -- “kind, decent Christians” that I live with would appreciate being told that they’re somehow the “foundation” for “nasty, hateful, judgmental Christianity”. I don’t see the argument that links these two groups. “Believing in a God without objective evidence” is not the same thing as “supporting bigotry and hatred on a grand scale”. This is the assumption you seem to be making, and it’s why I thought you’d had particular experience with some nasty fundamentalists. Not all Christians are alike.
And regarding your last point: if I decried everyone I disagreed with, there’d not be enough hours in the day; and even then I’m sure there’d be plenty of things that I could argue about, but do more harm than good, because I wouldn’t have time to do the proper research. I don’t think I’m “providing cover” for anybody. The last time I got involved in a cause that I felt strongly enough to take action about, I did it with my wallet as well as my voice. That’s “helping to make a change”. I’ve also tried to talk to people with an anti-vaccination stance about the flawed evidence against things like MMR jabs -- again, that’s “helping to make a change”. Calling out people for NOT calling out other people? That’s not making a change, that’s creating a shouting match. The thing about most shouting matches? Everybody loses.
I didn’t experience a particularly fundamental type of christianity, and I still think it’s important for moderate christians to call out extremist christians (same applies to other religions, by the way, but since christianity is the religion du jour of most of my friend circle, let’s focus on that). If anything, it’s even more important, if you want to carry the Good Christian label: a Good Christian would never, ever, ever let those Bad Christians say and do the things they do, especially if these things are so against what christians actually stand for -- and yes, just because it brings Good Christians a bad name.
I know a lot of Good Christians, and many of them actually do try to take a stand against the homophobia (par exemple) of other christians. But they’re a minority, and this is the problem: there aren’t more of them, since most take offense at being labelled christian like all those Bad Christians, and don’t have the heart to figure out how they could do something to try and fix that (because PERSECUTION!!!!!!!!! is more important than other people’s human rights or something). And they still base their faith on discriminatory ideas; they’ve only managed to think past some of them.
Anyway. I don’t know where else to go with this.
#notallchristians, indeed.
troubledbritishatheist:
I’m sure, and that’s a major part of the problem. You (they, whatever) want to hold yourself as separate -- it’s the same old fucking fallacy of no true christian once again. Whether you (they, whatever) like it or not, you believe the same things. All the foundational crap of christianity, yep, believed. You (they, whatever) are not separate from them, not in your beliefs, and as for actions, what actions? Whining on facebook? Posting stupid memes that at least one person didn’t realize were actual mockery?
The reason there’s no effective action against the various nastier flavours of Christianity is because of all the moderates -- the foundation, the same beliefs, the same ‘values’, the big ass voting bloc that would prefer christian politicians to atheist ones, or even moderate belief ones. Where are all the grass root efforts by moderate christians, to make a difference? Where are the campaigns? Where are the ads and billboards? FFS, atheist associations do all those things. Satanists do all those things, and by that metric, Satanists are much better fucking Christians than you and your friends.
That’s it for me -- I will not argue this crap around and around in a fucking circle. Wander off to some accommodationists somewhere, they’ll soothe you and make you feel all kinds of better. I will not coddle such shit.
#notallfuckingchristians indeed.
RQ -- I think it’s less of a problem where I am because “moderate” is the default Christian tenet, and anybody who goes too far to the right of that is looked upon as outside of the “norm”. It must be very different indeed if you live in a place where that’s not the case. I… honestly don’t know what to say to that. It’s not something that I can talk about with any authority because I don’t have first-hand knowledge, I can only go on what others say about it. I totally agree with you that it seems especially important there for the “good” Christians to make it clear that they don’t support the “bad” ones.
You know what I think the biggest difference is? Where I live, “religious” and “moral” mean two completely different things. By which I mean that religious people can describe themselves as moral, and may even say that they learnt their morals through religious teachings, but nobody has ever told me that I can’t be “moral” because I’m not religious. That doesn’t mean that I can support religion (in the end, it’s still preaching a bunch of stuff that I think is untrue) but it does mean that we can get beyond that point without lapsing into the kind of “nasty judgemental” attitude that Caine describes.
Caine -- I think the real problem is that you’re describing problems that don’t exist in the UK. When Tony Blair invoked his religion, just once, he was crucified in the media for it. (Pun intended.) It was a HUGE deal. Most people, religious or not, don’t want religion involved in politics. And the ones that do? They’re “nuts”, And treated as such. Of course we have extremists -- but they’re not in positions of power. (Of course, now that left-wing politics are basically dead over here, that might change… but that’s something I HAVE tried to do something about. Sadly unsuccessfully so far.)
I think we have a fairly fundamental disagreement, but it’s because of the vastly different societies that we live in. So it’s not worth arguing about. I’ll just say that I don’t envy the position that you’re in. As bad as things are politically over here right now, it makes me count my blessings (again, pun intended) in some respects!
Oh, and I totally agree with you about the “basis” of Christianity. That’s not even a question. “Faith” = “hope” and there’s no evidence for the existence of any God, not even a reliable definition of one. If I don’t make that clear it’s because we’re on an atheist blog, and it seems so freakin’ clear that it’s not worth debating.
The House of Lords has been abolished then?
And the Prime Minister is no longer involved in the appointment of diocesan bishops?
When did this disentanglement from the “positions of power” happen?
Yeah, I thought “wait a bit…” about that immediately after I’d posted it. Damn lack of “edit” button!
A Prime Minister can’t invoke God in a decision about going to war without a public outcry. So that’s good at least?
When I was growing up in the seventies, there was a robust branch of very liberal Christians (think Godspell). Even as late as the nineties, it was kept alive in, say, the Sanctuary movement. So I don’t think it’s fair to blame the conservatives on them.
Over the past few decades, there was a war fought inChristianity, and the liberals lost.
First let the fundies gain as much as they possibly can … then the moderates will step-up and take control.