Take your apocalypse and...

[Slytovhand]

All Wiccans drink blood

Actually, NO wiccans drink blood. There may be other groups that outsiders might 'call' wiccan, but their crede wouldnt' allow for it.

I partly agree, and also partly disagree, with some of what's shown up here.

Yes, I agree that when you introduce yourself , you shouldn't have to automatically caveat or qualify your beliefs by referring to others. After all, I'm pagan and I don't feel strongly inclined to qualify my beliefs with "But I don't go sacrificing goats the way the Romans did, nor bulls like Mithraists, nor...." etc.

But, by the same token, if there is a lot out there that is seriously bad for the religion, I think they should be very publicly eschewed. We had this issue not long ago. A person calling himself a witch (and druid) was done for doing things he shouldn't have been to a couple of young girls, and in the 'name' of his religion. The various pagan groups issued public statements saying just how he didn't even remotely characterise the general pagan flock. And for that matter, when he's shown up in the media (he keeps getting into it!) we keep issuing those public statements.

As for drawing comparisons with various acts or beliefs.... if they're there to be made.....

[Boozy]

From there, it becomes easy to believe that Fred Phelps is representative of the Christian viewpoint. If he's not, start denouncing him loud and long. Start telling people he does not represent you.

I refuse to accept that the onus is on the victims of prejudice to correct it.

Let's turn this around, and use an example from Islam (as Sylvia has briefly already). Let's say that I believe all Muslims are terrorists. This is small-minded, ignorant, and illogical. There is a wealth of information at my fingertips that would relieve me of this misconception, but I choose to ignore it because I prefer to see the world in black-and-white.

And yet you're saying that the Muslim community in every city should come forward and publicly announce that they are not terrorists? That a Muslim man or woman should introduce themselves as "Muslim, but not a terrorist"? This would be deeply insulting to most Muslims, and would give weight to my ridiculous prejudice, implying that there is some reason other than my own bigotry for believing what I do.

[Slytovhand]

How about "I'm an American, but I'm not a complete nutjob who is racist and believes in invading other nations willy-nilly - God Bless us all!"?

Anyone see anything wrong with that statement?????

[anriana]

How about "I'm an American, but I'm not a complete nutjob who is racist and believes in invading other nations willy-nilly - God Bless us all!"?

Anyone see anything wrong with that statement?????

The last four words?

[Rapscallion]

I refuse to accept that the onus is on the victims of prejudice to correct it.

If not them, then who? If the moderates don't speak up to condemn the extremists and explain the real story of the majority, then who will?

If that information isn't presented, it won't be heard. Most people are too lazy to do the research. Never underestimate how idle people are.

Of course, the problem is that it won't be heard anyway, as the average sensationalist publication won't be willing to put, "We're actually all rather nice," on the front page when Phelps and his clan are chanting, "Down with fags," in Times Square.

Rapscallion

[AdminAssistant]

Honestly, the best way to deal with people like Phelps & Co. is the same way to deal with screaming toddlers or internet trolls. Ignore them. Let them shout and carry signs and protest to their little hearts content. If the media would ignore them, then the whole thing would fizzle out. Other Christians condemning them just adds fuel to their fire, in a "Help! Help! I'm being oppressed!" kind of way.

The Freedom Rides are great, because it drowns out their nonsense, but doesn't give them the attention they so desperately need.

[Sylvia727]

Having been dragged to church for 15 years, read the Bible, and studied the origions of Christianity, that is not at all what I would consider the religion to be founded on.

And, for the record, I believe Sylvia is thinking about the teachings of Christ and the very beginnings of the church.

Yes, I meant the actual preachings of Christ, not the teachings of the church, early or current. Christ's messages were full of hope and tolerance. One of the most controversial things he said was to accept the Gentiles as equal to the Jews in his new religion. The racists of two millenia ago were about as happy with this proclamation then as modern racists would be (and are) now. I think Douglas Adams summed it up quite well: "nearly two thousand years after one man had been nailed to a tree for saying how great it would be to be nice to people for a change".

If you're not going to make sure that people know how you feel about these groups, don't be surprised when the true non-believers react to your entire religion with denial and disgust.

I'm not surprised, just sad. I suppose my failure lies in assuming that people are intelligent enough to think for themselves, and to realize that just because someone says he's something, doesn't mean he is. As for myself, when I find myself conversing with someone who does believe the stereotypes about different groups, who doesn't care to make the effort of basic research, and who shrugs my comments off as "PC" or "feel-good", then I walk away. I don't have so much time on my hands that I can afford to waste on it on the willfully ignorant.

Fortunately, I've found that most people are intelligent enough to change their thought processes. With one or two simple sentences, I've trained half a dozen people to say "radical Islam" or "jihadists" instead of "Muslims". I'm not a Muslim, and I have no investment in their community. I put the same effort into correcting misapprehensions about them that I do into correcting misapprehensions about any other religion, including my own religious beliefs. Just because I happen to believe something doesn't make me a spokesperson for or a teacher of that belief.

As I've said before, if the conversation turns to the wacko nutjobs, then I'll make my opinions heard clearly. But if the conversation is about my personal religion, I don't feel the need to clarify what I am not, merely what I am. For example, when introducing oneself as an atheist, one of the keywords one will trigger in the minds of religious people (at least around here) is "disrespectful". You can see people's attitudes click over into defensive. Past experience has taught them that anyone introducing himself as an atheist is here to attack their religious beliefs. The best way for atheists to overcome the subtle stereotypes about their community is to behave respectfully. To stand as a good example of what atheists are and are not. To say, "I'm an atheist, but I respect your right to believe whatever you want" is just plain silly. Where does the list end, anyway? "I'm a pagan, but I don't do A, B, or C and I'm not a member of D, E, or F, and really I believe G and H..."

[AdminAssistant]

But if the conversation is about my personal religion, I don't feel the need to clarify what I am not, merely what I am.

One of my favorite quotes:

"I'm not a 'non-smoker'. I've never smoked a cigarette in my life, but I'm not a 'non-smoker'. Know why? Because I don't define myself based on shit I don't do!" - Hal Sparks, Escape from Halcatraz

[Jadedcarguy]

To say, "I'm an atheist, but I respect your right to believe whatever you want" is just plain silly.

Really? I am an atheist, and I do respect your right to believe in whatever you want. What's silly about that?

Would you prefer I disrespect you and say you can't believe in what you do or that you must believe what I do?

If I said I was a Baptist but you can believe whatever you want would that be silly? Or maybe I am Catholic, but you can believe whatever you want. Where is the line drawn where I become silly?

[Jadedcarguy]

One of my favorite quotes:

"I'm not a 'non-smoker'. I've never smoked a cigarette in my life, but I'm not a 'non-smoker'. Know why? Because I don't define myself based on shit I don't do!" - Hal Sparks, Escape from Halcatraz

How about this, then:

I'M A FUCKING ATHEIST. I DON'T BELIEVE WHAT YOU DO.

I used to smoke, now I don't. That makes me a non-smoker. I used to believe, now I don't. That makes me a non-believer.

I've never been sky-diving or gone bungee jumping either, so that would make me a non-skydiver and a non-bungee jumper.

I refute your analogy with this: You're a non-atheist! Silly.

[Pedersen]

And, for the record, I believe Sylvia is thinking about the teachings of Christ and the very beginnings of the church. The early Catholic church is really to blame for many of the things that you are accusing all of Christianity for. I personally do not identify with a denomination or attend services (I am considering Unitarian Universalism, though). My relationship with God is personal...and I think he understands that I need sleeeep on Sundays.

What I'm accusing all of Christianity of doing is failing to denounce those nutjobs that are coming to represent it.

Phelps' clan is just one example. Christian Terrorism is very much alive and well, thank you. These are people who are out there. For outsiders looking at Christianity, these people are coming to represent the face of Christianity. Add in groups like Joel's Army, Dominionism, Branch Davidians, Nuremberg Files, etc, etc. These are extremists, all of them. However, the non-extremists do not denounce them. You do not hear about church leaders saying "These groups call themselves Christians, but they are not our brethren." You do not read "These so-called Christians are an affront to the teachings of Jesus, and they deserve both worldly punishment and judgment by the Almighty." in the papers.

It's not being said. I've even spoken with too many Christians who not only won't denounce these other groups, but actually hope these other groups succeed in their goals.

Blame it all on the Catholic church if you wish. They're a convenient scapegoat. But, someday, you're going to realize that the rest of the world is judging, not by the Catholic church, but by the actions and statements of the extremists and the nutjobs. And, since you're not trying to denounce them, the rest of the world can only believe that you are at least a closet sympathizer.

The same thing has happened to Islam and the Muslims. The majority of the practitioners do not want to kill all non-believers. But the ones that do are so vocal, and the ones that do not are so quiet, that Islam is being judged by the actions and words of the vocal minority. Is it fair? No. Does it suck? Yes.

Welcome to humanity. Good luck getting over that so that you can work on addressing a very serious problem being faced by the followers of your faith.

That's like lumping Mormons in with polygamist cults.

You mean the same Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints which states on their page about polygamy:

Today, the practice of polygamy is strictly prohibited in the Church, as it has been for over 100 years.

And will also publicly denounce any offshoot group which practices polygamy?

That Mormon church? Go figure, they're making a concerted effort to tell people that they actively disapprove of the practice. Just like I said for Christians to do about the nutjobs. That's just damned odd that they would do something which is so obviously so patently offensive. Wonder why they do that?

I detest Phelps and his teachings and followers, but, in this country, he and his group have the right to believe and preach as they wish.

They have the right to preach as they wish, no argument there. I personally hold the right to free speech to be the single most important right we have in this country. As such, I will even defend Phelps' clan speaking their hateful message. So, why aren't these other churches more actively exercising their right to free speech, and saying how much they disapprove of this sort of behavior?

Is it because they actually agree with Phelps? If not, why aren't they speaking up and saying the man is wrong?

How about "I'm an American, but I'm not a complete nutjob who is racist and believes in invading other nations willy-nilly - God Bless us all!"?

Anyone see anything wrong with that statement?????

Actually, I don't. I am an American. And I vehemently and vociferously disagree with the policies and actions of a great many of my fellow countrymen. They make me ashamed to call myself an American for so many reasons. Go and check elsewhere, you'll see I've said similar on numerous occasions.

The only thing that I find wrong with the statement is the need to say it. It shows how far my country has fallen in the world thanks to my fellow Americans. That the need is there is a cause for both distress and sadness. But the need is there, nonetheless. So, I deal with it.

Honestly, the best way to deal with people like Phelps & Co. is the same way to deal with screaming toddlers or internet trolls. Ignore them. Let them shout and carry signs and protest to their little hearts content. If the media would ignore them, then the whole thing would fizzle out. Other Christians condemning them just adds fuel to their fire, in a "Help! Help! I'm being oppressed!" kind of way.

Yep, just like schoolyard bullies will all back down if you just ignore them. Too bad that tactic doesn't work. And if they want to scream about being repressed? Let them. The other denominations should denounce them. The other denominations should be reminding everybody that Phelps's teachings are not their own. But they don't. Their silence speaks volumes about their true opinions.

I'm not surprised, just sad. I suppose my failure lies in assuming that people are intelligent enough to think for themselves, and to realize that just because someone says he's something, doesn't mean he is.

The only time that people are able to find these things out before hand is through prior exposure of some variety. For instance, suppose we were to transplant someone from one of the uncontacted native tribes in the Amazon basin to right next to Phelps' church, and (somehow) give him the ability to understand English without giving him any of our other prejudices. He meets the congregation. What will he think Christians are?

Same guy, watching TV. Gets to the news, where they're talking about Phelps' church. He hears lots of noise from people who don't like Phelps, but not one of them claims to be Christian. Now what does he think of Christians?

Same guy, same news channel, same sort of report, different day: Leaders from three other denominations pop up and say "Phelps says he is a Christian, but no true Christian would behave this way." Now what does this guy think?

Phelps and the other extremists are becoming the face and voice of your religion. If you don't want that, you have to stop it now. Hence why I said to speak up.

With one or two simple sentences, I've trained half a dozen people to say "radical Islam" or "jihadists" instead of "Muslims".

As I've said before, if the conversation turns to the wacko nutjobs, then I'll make my opinions heard clearly.

And here I see you are doing your part. I'm glad of that.

But if the conversation is about my personal religion, I don't feel the need to clarify what I am not, merely what I am.

Unfortunately, what you are not is becoming important. I'd ackowledge that if I were you. Failure to do so could make more problems for you later on.

[Sylvia727]

Really? I am an atheist, and I do respect your right to believe in whatever you want. What's silly about that?

The silly part is that you don't have to say that. You respecting my rights has nothing to do with your religion. Drawing a connection between the two is silly. I can meet five people on the street, of five different religious persuasions, and reasonably expect that none of them will behave like assholes, no matter what religion they introduce themself as.

If I were to meet you in person, and you mentioned that you were an atheist, there would be no need for you to clarify that you were not inclined to disrespect.

ETA: Beaten to the post by Pedersen

What I'm accusing all of Christianity of doing is failing to denounce those nutjobs that are coming to represent it. <snip> However, the non-extremists do not denounce them. You do not hear about church leaders saying "These groups call themselves Christians, but they are not our brethren." You do not read "These so-called Christians are an affront to the teachings of Jesus, and they deserve both worldly punishment and judgment by the Almighty." in the papers.

I'm not a church leader. Newspapers aren't going to print what I say. What do you suggest?

Phelps and the other extremists are becoming the face and voice of your religion.

Just to clarify, I am not a Christian. I may have used the first person pronoun in regards to Christianity, but I promise it was hypothetical. Your "your" here might be plural, of course, but I just wanted to prevent any misunderstandings.

Unfortunately, what you are not is becoming important. I'd ackowledge that if I were you. Failure to do so could make more problems for you later on.

It could and does cause problems for me. But it's not my fault people make assumptions about me. I answer questions fully and honestly, but I won't go out of my way to emphasize the negative. I feel that would be demeaning myself.

[Pedersen]

If I were to meet you in person, and you mentioned that you were an atheist, there would be no need for you to clarify that you were not inclined to disrespect.

Sylvia727, your own words earlier give lie to this statement. Quoted for your (and others) benefit:

For example, when introducing oneself as an atheist, one of the keywords one will trigger in the minds of religious people (at least around here) is "disrespectful". You can see people's attitudes click over into defensive. Past experience has taught them that anyone introducing himself as an atheist is here to attack their religious beliefs.

Apparently there is a need for JadedCarGuy to state his respect for your beliefs.

[Sylvia727]

Pedersen,

But why make an issue out of it? Yes, some of the people an atheist meets may make assumptions about him based on his beliefs. But they'll also make assumptions based on his clothing, his car, his politics. That's just human nature. By prematurely jumping to the defensive, he merely creates a stronger connection between the two in the mind of the bigot. A better way to overturn the stereotypes is to live the opposite.

Again, if the conversation turns to it, make your opinions known. But as Boozy said, the onus of responsibility is not on the victims to overturn prejudice. People are responsible for their own beliefs, no one else's.

[Boozy]

If not them, then who? If the moderates don't speak up to condemn the extremists and explain the real story of the majority, then who will?

Anyone. Anyone with an interest in public education and promoting truth and tolerance. Anyone who wants to correct the misconceptions of the small-minded should do so, and I applaud them for taking on such a daunting task. Some of these people may be members of the group being misjudged, and others may not.

But if someone wants to keep their head down, mind their own business, and believe in Allah/Christ/whatever, I'm going to let them. I'm not inclined to fault them for not being vocal activists for religious tolerance, just because some nut jobs they've never met claim to be connected to them in some way.