Is the term "Christian-bashing" offensive?

[Dookus]

I never heard the word until "gay-bashing" became a widely-accepted word. I think it's a linguistic back-formation from "gay-bashing".

What I find offensive is that gay-bashing involves actual bats and bricks making forceful contact with actual heads. I don't see any real Christian-bashing taking place in this country.

If the worst thing that happens to a Christian is that somebody disagrees with him publicly, then I consider that leading a charmed life.

Don't diminish what bashing is, or what the word means by trivializing it. Disagreements - even insults - are not bashing. I know too many people for whom bashing has a real, literal meaning that we shouldn't minimize.

[pinkpops]

1. If a person says they are gay they probably are, but

if a person says they are a Christian they may or may not be. Bashing anyone is at best bad manners but criticizing people who claim to be Christians but don't act like it is just outing them as hypocrites, dontcha think?

[Dookus]

3. my point

is the difference between whacking you over the head with a baseball bat and saying your religion is silly.

[Gyre]

2. Yes, as a Christian-basher

I take exception to this epithet. It hurts my feelings. :)

Gyre

[Dookus]

4. lol

:P

[Warpy]

11. Whiny posts about Christian bashing are offensive.

Get down off that cross...

[Dhalgren]

5. Yeah, I agree.

It reminds me of when that sack of pus, Clarence Thomas said that his confirmation hearing was a "high-tech lynching". The bastard just displayed what a cretinous fuck he is by making that obscene comparison. Christians just suffer from persecution envy. They're mad to be martyred - long as it's just verbally. If it really started getting physical, you'd see a whole lot of renunciation going on - bet on it.

[Dookus]

6. That's an excellent analogy

Yes, I was disgusted when Thomas did that, too. To take a real, historical violent threat and turn it into a complaint about political opposition is vile.

[davidwparker]

7. The Romans were good at inflicting pain on (the real)

Christians and the church grew. This has happened under persecution -- the church just grows and grows.

[Dhalgren]

16. That was when the "church" represented the downtrodden

and the poor, the weak and the "outcast". The "church" had no power and was viewed as a rebellious influence. Now, the "church" is the establishment and controls society in deep and meaningful ways that everyone understands and acknowledges (even if only to themselves) and is more often than not the oppressor - not the oppressed. The growth of the "church" in Roman times was based on a seeking after truth (even if it was misguided). The "church", now, seeks only after power and money - the "church", now, is something to be feared, not followed...

[Rowdyboy]

8. Dookus, I think you're being a little literal here

Yes, the word "bashing" came into its own in connection to actual physical gay bashing, however, the word has come to mean more than extrema physical abuse. Of course you can "bash" Christians, just as you can "bash" progressives, southerners, feminists, Canadians, environmentalists, fundamentalists or any other group.

"Bashing" has already entered the DU vernacular as an acceptable term for negative posts/rants. I'm sorry it bothers you, but its not likely to change-regardless of what anyone thinks.

[Dookus]

9. Well

perhaps people could challenge the word when used by wannabe-martyrs.

[Meldread]

10. I don't find it offensive, no...

Although I do agree with the spirit of what your saying. Many right-wing Christians have a great tendency to over play the role of the victim to almost humorous proportions. I have little doubt that they believe they are victims and feel threatened by us. I just find it odd that they feel threatened; when the truth of the matter is most gay people want nothing more than to live their lives free of harassment and intolerance.

On the other hand, they are threatened because as society inevitably becomes more accepting of us they will begin to see them for what they are: bigots. They will, no doubt, within the next 50 years be viewed in the same light as the KKK is viewed today. Deep down they know this and fear it. They believe what they say because they are ignorant of the truth.

They directly and indirectly inflict untold violence (emotionally and physically) on us and certainly we have every right to view them with a sense of distain. Although, personally, I've made a commitment to myself not to sink to their level. I'm better than they are, and I must always require better of myself. As a result even though they infuriate me to no end, I find it hard not to pity them. I pity them because they toss away good people, and do evil things in the name of "good". I pity them because they are choosing to live in ignorance even to the extent that they'll violate their own doctrines to perpetuate hatred and bigotry. I pity them because as a result of their ignorance they are living with a heavy burden of hatred and anger in their hearts. In many ways, I've been no better than they were, and I've fought against them with just as much as intense ferocity as they've fought against me. The difference between them and myself is that *I* know better.

If one of them were to reach out to me and ask for me to help them understand I wouldn't turn them away. It is my highest hope that they will some day change and understand -- I don't hold my breath -- but should it happen for some of them then that is good. I have little doubt that if their God exists many of them will be in shock when they die. Their own religion tells them that they cannot know God if they hate their brother.

It is sad that it is often the most devious of villains in the world who act in the name of goodness and righteousness. It is rare that evil ever truly acts out in the open, naked and exposed for all to see.

[Calvinist Basset]

12. You know, this depends on which country we're talking about here.

In the U.S., "Christian-bashing" may not involve bricks and bats. But there are places in the world where people are literally beaten, imprisoned and murdered for their faith (Christian and otherwise).

As a Christian myself, I welcome disagreement from others because it causes me to keep thinking, evaluating and growing. But physical bashing or hateful words and actions against any group of people are, in my opinion, always unacceptable.

[Dookus]

13. that's why I said

"this country" in the original post.

[Dhalgren]

17. Just curious;

where are Christians "beaten, imprisoned and murdered for their faith" - not for transgressing any established laws, but only for what they believe? Honestly, just asking...

[Calvinist Basset]

24. examples of Christian oppression

can be seen in:

China

Saudi Arabia

Pakistan

and in several other countries around the world.

[Dhalgren]

28. Do you have any citations?

I have heard these stories circulated by religious groups, but have never been able to locate any documentation or reports separate from a religious organization. I have seen articles about certain individuals who have been sentenced to jail time (and who were Christian or Muslim), but they were convicted of "crimes" not related to their beliefs. If this is real, it should be more widely reported.

[justin899]

14. Quite correct and I agree with you completely n/t

[Brian_Expat]

15. There is no difference between

calling someone a "silly mincing faggot" and a "stupid superstitious religious person." Both terms are motivated out of extreme hatred.

In fact, if you combine the hatred from both sides, I've been described as a silly stupid superstitious mincing faggot. I guess by Dookus' "logic," only the "mincing faggot" in there is bigoted and insulting.

Jerry Falwell hates and condemns homosexuals. Dookus hates and condemns people with religious and spiritual values. Both are invoking bigotry to advance their own personal agendas -- there's no difference except the content of the bigotry.

[Dhalgren]

18. You've got to be kidding!

Dookus disagrees with Jerry Falwell's beliefs and actions regarding the freedoms and liberties of others. Jerry Falwell hates "faggots" because of what they are. That is so huge a difference that I am surprised any one would miss it.

[Brian_Expat]

19. Dookus says all Christians are like Jerry Falwell

Which is like Jerry Falwell saying all gays are like Jeoffry Dahmer.

[Dhalgren]

20. Where does Dookus say that?

[Brian_Expat]

22. In my other thread about gays and religion

Dookus described all gay people who have spirituality as "superstitious" and stated that gay people should be forced to "stop living by ancient superstitions" (his words for individuals who have personal spiritual or religious beliefs, regardless of origin).

I don't see much difference between that sort of statement and the sort of stuff that comes out of Falwell or Focus on the Family on a regular basis about gays.

[Dookus]

23. don't bring your silly flame wars

into another thread.

And for the record, I wasn't calling gay religious people superstitious - I was calling ALL religious people superstitious. It has nothing to do with one's sexuality.

You seem to think superstitious is an insult. I believe it is accurate.

Also, there are some big diffrences between Falwell and me. I don't believe religious people should be prohibited from marrying, adopting or otherwise living a law-abiding life without interference from society or the government. Falwell does not give me the same respect.

[Dhalgren]

21. You have just equated Jerry Falwell with Jeoffry Dahmer,

as being equal examples of stereotyping from one side to the other.

If a Christian attempts to defend Falwell's beliefs and attitudes, even surreptitiously, then that "Christian" has surely shown his true colors...

[Dookus]

26. No

Dookus doesn't say that. I never said anything of the sort.

If being called "superstitious" is the worst affront you encounter this week, you will indeed have had an excellent week.

[Der Blaue Engel]

25. Yes, Dookus, I agree

Although the word probably lost its impact (no pun intended) before Christians co-opted it, similar to the use of Nazi in everyday situations, like mean people denying one soup. ;)

Or did it? It would be interesting to trace it back to the first time bashing was used to describe language someone didn't like rather than physical brutality.

[terrya]

27. I am so sick of this idea that Christians are poor, helpless victims..

and that they are being "bashed". What idiotic nonsense.

Where are these bashings of Christians taking place? Are maurading bands of gays and lesbians going all over the country, setting fire to fundementalist churches? Are these same bands of gays physically attacking Christians? What absolute bullshit. You have an alleged Christian like Pat Robertson sitting perfectly quiet as REAL bashings of gay and lesbian folks take place in this country...year after year after year. When Matthew Shepard was brutally slain, the then President of the United States spoke about it...denouncing this cruel, barbarous act...and urged an end to violence against gay people. And yet...not one goddammed word from the likes of Pat "I have a hotline to Jesus" Robertson and his ilk. Not. One. Single. Word. Because he just didn't give a damn whether people like Matthew Shepard are killed. Because...they're just homosexuals.

I'm sick to death of this victimhood status of Christians and that the idea that you dare to disagree with them, that you would dare to denounce their bigotry, their hatred is "bashing" them. What idiotic bullshit.

[sundog]

29. Well, they have been the most persecuted group throughout

history and all... all those Christian concentration camps :eyes:

There's nothing more amusing than watching oppressors victimize themselves. Victimization always seems to be the quickest route to divinity.

Bashing is when your bludgeoned to death or watch your family get shot before your eyes or see your home get blown up.