She’s a Christian, Not a Stereotype

They’re killjoys, zealots, narrow-minded bigots.

Blue laws, stem-cell research, gay marriage.

That might have something to do with the stereotypes. It seems to me that negative stereotypes like the above all relate to how some Christians interact with others, more specifically how they interact politically. (I think more people who would describe Christians in those terms would list political issues than high school rules, like she did.)

That would ironically suggest a good way to fight those stereotypes is to push more for separation of church and state.

I actually considered either writing a letter to the editor (I’m local) or contacting the columnist. I have to say the article irritated me immensely. I can’t quite put my finger on why, though, other than 35 years of being a Christian woman (Yes, I was a late comer to atheism) and knowing women who would write this sort of thing. The subtle “victim” mentality . . . “public opinion rarely seems sympathetic”. Come on, chiclet, 80% of Americans call themselves Christian. One would hardly think that the opinions of 20% would affect you that much. The majority of the news *I* read is pro-Christian and anti-everything else . . and don’t even try to say folks think less of Christians than atheists. And what sort of person goes around soliciting negative options? One who is in your face Christian.

All things considered, I’m just going to stop reading that column. At least once a month it annoys me and it’s not the kids fault that adults are facilitating them being public idiots.

Ms. McClellan’s flavor of Christianity is almost precisely like my wife’s. I have been an atheist for over 20 years, and matured from being a very aggressive and insulting one to something resembling a decent human one. Ten years ago when my wife and I met, we knew the #1 fundamental difference between us was faith. I had none, and she had plenty.

But as we got to know each other, courted, talked about this big difference between us, we learned that the RESULTS of her faith and my more mature humanism were almost identical. We just found motivation to do good things or ‘the right thing’ from different places. We’ve been happily married for over eight years now, and we are raising a three-year-old son who will get to see both sides of this debate from us.

So… yes… getting along with (and in my case marrying) a Christian whose faith is almost an unmitigated positive influence is good. If that’s all religion ever was, we’d have no real reason to argue against it. All that would be left to do is concentrate on educating children so they don’t need the short-cut that is faith to do good things. I am so comfortable at this point with my situation that I am relaxed about whether my son adopts my wife’s faith or my atheism. I have a preference, but if he’s as sweet and sensible as she is, I won’t mind, really.

My hat’s off to Ms. McClellan’s for speaking up about a Christianity I can (and do) live with.

A couple of good friends of mine are christian, and fundamentalist at that. We do not see eye-to-eye on the religion thing (FAR from it), but because we choose to live our lives in a way that reflects our core values, and those core values are very similar, we get along extremely well. On occasion they’ll say they’ll pray for me (when I’m having a really difficult time), and although we both laugh, I know that it is meant sincerely – they truly believe that prayer is a helpful thing, and they are truly offering help, even if I don’t believe in it. It is offered as a sincere gift, and I accept it graciously as such – even if it’s the wrong color, size, or I’m allergic to the material!

The public face of Christianity has gotten much uglier since my fundamentalist days (roughly the 1970s), and I don’t think it’s just a perception effect on my part. Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter hadn’t yet succeeded in making “liberal” a dirty word; what were marginal authoritarian groups are now mainstream.

So sure: there’s all sorts of Christians, and just to confuse our sterotypes even further, the liberal/conservative polarity doesn’t always correlate with the nice-guy/asshole polarity. Ultimately, you stand for who you are, not some school of thought with which you are nominally affiliated.

Hemant wrote:

I wonder how many of you who read that article have a desire to debate her or point out the myriad problems with Christianity.

Well, I’m one. I don’t wish to debate her if she really isn’t interested in debate, but she makes comments in her essay that are questionable.

She laments the image of Christians, saying that the actions of a few have tarnished the image of all. Fair enough. However, the examples she gives from her school life — the dress code, the prohibition on dances — garner criticism not primarily from non-Christians, but from everybody outside her cloistered environment, most of whom are her fellow Christians.

Her list of problems she wrestles with, presented as examples of critical thinking and questioning, are lacking: the supposed dichotomy of science and religion? I’d be more impressed if she wrestled with the existence of gods, or the facts behind the stories in the bible. I’d give her the benefit of the doubt; perhaps she does learn critical thinking to some reasonable degree at her school, even though her examples don’t demonstrate anything of the kind.

These comments are not meant as criticisms of her. She does indeed sound like a thoughtful young woman. However, her writing does give the impression she has a very narrow view of who is “Christian” and what is a “Christian school”. I dare say that what comes to mind for most people in the US when they think of Christians is “me”.

I think her last paragraph is quite interesting. She wants people to see her faith for “what it is”, not for “the manner in which it is lived”. Frankly, I’m mostly interested in “the manner in which it is lived”; “what it is” is her business, not mine.

To me there generally tend to be two types of Christians. The first are those who may or may not believe in God and Jesus and some of the other supernatural tenets of their particular branch of Christianity,but have a certain level of respect for the people, culture, traditions, etc. and may find the religion to be a good source of morality or perhaps simply a good default because you have to be something. However, at the end of the day, these people ultimately pick and choose what aspects of their faith they believe in.

The second type though, are those who take their faith seriously. To them their religion is not a culture or tradition or a default, but an undeniable truth.

A lot of people, including many Atheists seem to not have a problem with the first of these two types of Christians. A lot of Atheist may even be this first type of Christian. But, when people, including the first type of Christian, encounter the second type, the Palins and Huckabees and members of Opus Dei or “the Family,” they grow uncomfortable.

If you read the entire article written by that girl, it appears that she is the second type.

” But while this setting paints a predictable portrait, my circumstances do not make me a Christian. ”

This was said just after saying how she was put into CHristian schools from the age of 2. If she actually thinks she had a real choice of her belief system, she is sorely disillusioned. She had no chance to examine anything if she was told god was true from birth. And I have NEVER met a child of religious parents who was told that god might be true. It is always, “God is true” Poor girl. That sort of upbringing really irritates me. It is mean and unfair to do that to a child. Not to mention totally unnecessary. My kids (ages 11 and 8) Have grown up without any such absolute truths (one way or the other) and still are very happy little campers.

haha! i didn’t realise that “8 )” would be a smiley. hehe… mY kids are 11 and 8. not 11 and 8)
Danged smileys…

Christianity does not demand these attitudes any more than it condones them.

Alex is right. Christianity does demand these attitudes, most Christians like Holly or my Christian friends simply ignore those parts. However, Jesus does, for example, demand you leave you family to follow him. Many families have followed this in some manner but making outcasts of children or family member how follow a different faith, are homosexuals, or become atheists. We can be very thankful that those intolerant Christians do not follow their Bible further and stone their rejected family members to death.

The actions of a few who claim the Christian faith have managed to alienate countless numbers of people

[emphasis mine]

Wrong. If it were the actions of a few, we would not have such a hard time getting marriage equality for homosexuals.

I ask others to remain open-minded, to see my faith for what it is and not just the manner in which it is lived out by flawed people like myself

I appreciate that she falls on the “nice” end of the spectrum. I also apprecite her frustration with being tarred with a brush made by her intolerant fellow Christians.

Unfortunately, she is not understanding that this is a problem if she professes a faith that is based on a book with conflicting messages, as well as messages that are not so conflicting and at the same time not very nice or moral. This is what happens when your holy book is a big book of multiple choice.

In the same way that she is hindered by a bad stereo type created by bigots and fundamentalists, they reap some of the rewards of her moderation and decency. In this way the liberal or moderate Christian provides cover for those black hearted villains.

You can’t simply take the touchy feely, nicey-nice parts of Christianity and ignore the the immoral parts that come with it. Once you do that you can’t call your self a Christian anymore than a person can agree with the KKK except for the part where he wants to marry his black, gay lover.

Call yourself something different, or drop the god belief altogether.

The actions of a few who claim the Christian faith have managed to alienate countless numbers of people, a fact that distresses me and has encouraged me to take action.

She must have a pretty unique definition of “few” if she believes that.

And count me among the ranks of those who are tired of hearing the victim mentality from those in the overwhelming majority. No one has the luxury of universal approval, and it just sounds naive and whiny to hear someone complaining about negative perceptions of Christianity when 80-90% of people in this country identify, to some extent, with Christianity.

“I ask others to remain open-minded, to see my faith for what it is and not just the manner in which it is lived out by flawed people like myself”

One of the most valuable lessons I have learned was to go by what people do, not by what they say. It is precisely the manner in which it is lived that effects other people. Not necessarily the faith. It is great to have good intentions, but when the manner in which you live results in the stripping of civil rights, that is what I will judge you on.
Not to say she is against same-sex marriage, but christians in one form or another (and yes, Mormons are christian) are the ones who put through Prop 8 here in CA.
And the only one saying you’re flawed is your old book. Geez, invent a problem, then sell the answer to those you sold the problem to. Grrr…. maybe she is just young.

What first comes to mind when you think of Christians? …. The mental image is often unflattering, and public opinion rarely seems sympathetic.

*blink*

So… the 80+% of Americans who are Christians must live with the knowledge that they are viewed somewhat unfavorably by some fraction of the <20% who aren't? Why, that's… something I just can't bring myself to care about in the least.

I ask others to remain open-minded…

We’re plenty open-minded; you see, our open-minded consideration of affairs shows us that your faith is staggeringly absurd, whether or not its adherents exhibit any of the behaviors you list. Feel free to present any sort of evidence that might shift it from the category of “preposterous inanity” to “marginally plausible,” and we’ll gladly recalibrate our rhetoric. Until then, if you insist upon asking others to “see your faith for what it is,” you best ready yourself for the criticisms of those who do.

Absurd beliefs must always be challenged.

I ask others to remain open-minded, to see my faith for what it is and not just the manner in which it is lived out by flawed people like myself.

We do see the Christian faith for what it is (along with every other faith in the world): an archaic, irrational set of beliefs that have caused great suffering and loss in the world. They have also inspired great acts of charity and kindness, but at their core, they are fundamentally disconnected from reality. I suppose that if everyone who held these unrealistic beliefs just went around doing nice things, we wouldn’t really care about their motives… but lots of people don’t.

And yes, again, actions > words. How that faith is lived out is the only way to judge what it means, and, well, judging by what I’ve seen, it’s not great.

This is standard apologetics they teach indoctrinate in these ideological driven schools. It’s creepy, if there’s one thing you notice above everything else is that they don’t think for themselves, they say the same things, they believe the same things, they think the same way.

We don’t have rules, we have standards! I wrestle with these supposed dichotomies! Our teachers support critical thinking so we become informed Christian members of society who understand what we believe, and why they believe it! Everyone has faith in something! A few who claim the Christian faith…

Faith is belief without evidence, irrational belief. You don’t examine, doubt, or test your faith. You don’t reason your way out of beliefs you didn’t reason your way into. Not everyone bases their beliefs on faith.

She doesn’t say what she believes, just that she’d like to share her faith, be a witness, “honor” God. This is sophisticated marketing. It would be interesting to find out how open-minded she is to hear another perspective.

Absurd beliefs must always be challenged.

OK I’m challenging you on that absurd belief.

And so it goes….

I had the same reaction as Gwenny. Holly seems predisposed to the popular Christian idea that society at large persecutes her for her faith, and she responds with faux humility. Whose opinion is she seeking? Because I think she will find, especially come election time, that people associate ‘Christian’ with someone who is automatically more trustworthy and a super duper Real American. Or does she not know that many people in this fine country think atheists are as good as child molesters?

Holly has a lot of growing up to do.

Holly:

You sure can talk the talk. Can you walk the walk? We don’t care about what your faith is “for what it is” – but we care intensely about the “manner in which it is lived out”. The manner is which it is lived out is a systematic abuse of anyone who is not like you.
The people who call themselves Christians encourage and support this abuse. Either you are a Christian who ACTIVELY stands against these things, or you are condoing them with your silence.
If you stay silent to avoid being condemmned, then you’re beyond pathetic. If you stay silent because want to encourage the abuse, then everything bad we think about Christians, and you, is true. Either way, your silence comdems you as a supporter of the abuse.

@Parse – thanks for the added info about the school’s mandatory statement of faith. The examples you gave are exactly what I consider bigoted – and even worse than “killjoy” material.

The emphasis on evangelism seems to suggest a prime contender for what Holly’s motivations might be: changing the packaging and making Christianity seem more palatable to the 10-20% of the “unsaved” so that we might be converted. Thanks, but no thanks. If being tolerant, kind and charitable was all it took to get me to join a religion, I’d be a liberal Quaker or Methodist or Unitarian. Instead, this sort of garbage hints at a softer, gentler Christianity that thinly veils the same objectionable tenets that have led to the stereotypes Holly complains about!

She may be much less offensive than most Christians, but she still believes crazy, untrue stuff.
She may claim not to embrace the more odious aspects of her religion, such as stoning gays to death and not eating shellfish (who doesn’t love lobster?), but those who ignore greater and greater parts of Christian dogma at some point stop being Christians.
Perhaps she should rethink how she labels herself. Maybe she’s really a deist.

I don’t think of “basically good” when I think of “christian”.

When I think of a “christian”, I think of a closed-minded person who basically wants to prevent everybody else from doing anything that they disagree with.

I have never met any counter-examples to my assessment.

This article feels like a giant no-True-Scotsman fallacy.

Christianity is a giant social institution that includes many, many different viewpoints.

Both, “Christianity does support individuality” and “Christianity does not support individuality” are incorrect. Some interpretations do, and some do not.

But, yet again, we have someone who seems to be saying, “I am a member of a group with more than a billion members and as many sets of moral beliefs. You should judge the group’s views based on my personal, progressive interpretation.”

If the article’s argument were more, “people should stop assuming that Christianity necessarily opposes individuality,” I’d have less of an issue. Though, I don’t think I’ve ever met anyone who actually holds the view, “It is impossible to interpret Christianity in a socially progressive way.”

“…to share it with all who will listen.”

I think she probably meant to write “to share it with all who have ears, whether they want to listen or not.”

A couple of impressions:

* Ms. McClellan sounds like she doesn’t want to be lumped in with Pat Robertson et al. Who would? His “true story” about a Haitian “pact with the devil” says enough. That’s almost as hard to understand as a ban on dancing. True, dance is a “vertical expression of a horizontal desire.” So? We are sexual beings, like it or not–I happen to like it.

* As others have said here, Ms. McClellan seems to fallaciously conflate Christianity with morality. I would bet serious money that she has never read Psalm 137.

* Like Corey at 10:50 am, I could bring up the kind of “Christianity” practiced by my wife. I use the scare quotes because she has some very un-Christian beliefs: most notably, universal salvation. She tells me that, from a very young age in the Southern Baptist church, she could not believe that someone who had never heard of Christianity should be condemned for that. And now, she believes that even a non-believer (i.e., me) will be with her in her afterlife. OK, it gives her comfort, and I can’t see that it hurts her. (She did escape from the babdists, at least…)

As Eamon Knight pointed out, Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter have tried to make “Liberal” a dirty word, and they haven’t succeeded…

Sorry, Brittany–they have succeeded, which was, in fact, Eamon’s point; they hadn’t yet succeeded back in the 1970’s, as he plainly stated.

There are good people and there are bad people, both believers and non believers. If she is saying that x-tians are only good, then she needs to open her eyes. If she is saying, “not all of us are jerks”, then we need to open our hearts.

What I got from that article: All those bad people aren’t real Christians. True Christians are ones like me who don’t piss you off!

Ignoring the fact that most of those ‘stereotypes’ are infact just following the bible, lets not pretend a 2000 year old book endorses full equality between genders and sexual orientations or any of modern science, how is she any different from them in just saying she’s right and everyone who disagrees is only ‘claiming’ to be a christian?

PS: I’d like to point out like other people have that until the majority of states vote to legalize gay marriage can not possibly be argued that it’s a minority of Christians who are bigots.

My interactions with my friends here have already convinced me of Holly’s assertion way back.

Well, for what it’s worth, at first, I just read the paragraphs quoted. If that’s all you read, she comes off as being one of the type of Christians, I do have as friends, except perhaps that obnoxious little bit about sharing with all who will hear.

(It may be bigoted of me but once a Christian tries to jam their religion down my throat as if I haven’t heard it all before, they’ve lost any possibility of my being anything other than wary of them. That’s not respect.)

Live and let live and my empathy for the Fallwells and Limbaughs and Coulters of this world for making you look bad. For the record, I have told Christian friends this, mostly because they have expressed disgust at these people.

However, after reading some of the comments, I did click on the link and read the whole damn thing, and if you do, you find that she’s not at all what she’s claiming in the paragraphs she uses as the bread of her sandwich. The meat in between is quite rotten.

It’s more of the same old, same old. Stop challenging what I believe. Stop speaking truth to lies. Stop asking us to be respectful of nonbelief or even differing beliefs. She glows that having a banquet is just as much fun as a dance (as if she’d know, the poor girl obviously hasn’t ever danced) and it doesn’t stifle creativity to have her gowns for the banquet pre-approved by school staff. Uh, yes, it does. They don’t even trust you with a few normal rules like no sheer tops, for Christ’s sake. And, gasp, boy’s hair cannot be over a certain length. (This school is like 50 years behind the times. I’m wondering if the girls are even allowed to wear pants.)

And, yes, the whining is annoying. Oh, you poor little majority that never, ever gets the votes to push your agenda on the rest of us. As others have said, talk to us about how you’re not bigoted when gays can marry and no one’s discussing abortion or if a woman can have it all any more. Just quietly choosing for themself.

These seems more a ploy to get people to listen and those who don’t sit still for a tale of what Jesus means to her are just prejudging her for being Christian.

Look I can’t imagine any of my Christian friends attempting to share what Jesus means to them. First of all, they know I have some idea because I have heard it all before. Unless you’re living under a rock, in America, you have. That’s what freedom of speech has wrought. They respect me too much to sermonize to me just as I respect them too much to tell them they shouldn’t believe in fairy tales.

If she were truly as unbigoted, etc. as she’d like us to believe, she wouldn’t even be harping on this to the nonbelievers. I’d like to think she did intend to address this to fellow believers who are giving Christians a bad name but, if that were the case, she’d have certainly addressed them in a manner that indicated as much.

It would read more like let’s show the world we’re not like that. Let’s lead by example and turn the other cheek. Let’s open our minds to those who don’t believe as we do. Let’s behave in a way that shows them we are not like Fallwell and Limbaugh and Coulter.

Christianity, at its core, is the conversion to a belief that you were born a sinner and need Jesus Christ in order to avoid being sent to hell by a just God.
Here is another biblical concept: how can light have fellowship with darkness?
Guess who is in the dark?
Everything else is window-dressing.
to soften this statement: I know many mean well and some truly live a life of “loving their neighbor as themselves.”

When I think of a “christian”, I think of a closed-minded person who basically wants to prevent everybody else from doing anything that they disagree with.

I have never met any counter-examples to my assessment.

You haven’t met my parents…

@Matto the Hun

I agree that many groups are in fact victims. We all are victims at times, just like we all are motivated by our persecution.

Christians are victims at times, but more often than not they are exaggerating their victim situation.

I also agree that we atheists are persecuted in countless situations, but that doesn’t mean we don’t enjoy talking about the injustice of it.

He’ll be claiming that ‘Screw you ant the horse you rode in on’ promotes Bestiality…

Maybe it is because I’m not reading this article with preconceptions of what a Christian is, or what it means to be religious, but I have no problem with what Holly McClellan is saying in her article. The intent of her piece and the message she seems to be delivering is that it is unreasonable to group her within the fundamentalist stereotype for the reason that she shares with them the same source material for their obviously widely differing beliefs.

Is this girl whining? Not from what I can tell. Ms. McClellan appears to be a reasonable person who has no desire to be painted with the same brush with which non-religious and atheist communities have painted the Christian fundamentalists.

OK, it does bother me. I’m not concern trolling. It just seems qualitatively different than “Oh, screw him/her!” It seems Rush Limbaugh-y.

Beth, thanks for speaking up about the HrothgirOD’s comment.

Gibbon said:

The intent of her piece and the message she seems to be delivering is that it is unreasonable to group her within the fundamentalist stereotype for the reason that she shares with them the same source material for their obviously widely differing beliefs.

Like others have pointed out, it’s easy to get the impression she might actually have different beliefs from the typical fundy, but if you read closer you realize its the same old, same old as muggle said. Creationism, homophobia, whatever, it doesn’t get better if you put a smiley face on it. Now if she said “I’m a christian, but in our church we accept evolution and gay marriage” now then I would say she had differing beliefs. And I don’t care if the Bible doesn’t “really” support it – how can anyone get a coherent message from the Bible about any of those issues?

Do you honestly think that “screw her” means anything other than “she can go to hell”? Are you ACTUALLY thinking it means that someone thinks she should be raped?

I don’t see her sensitivity to people’s negative perceptions of Christianity as whining so much as an indication that she’s being forced to confront other competing worldviews and finding it challenging, and attempting to rise to that challenge. Perhaps she doesn’t succeed but at least she’s engaging with the rest of the world in some capacity. It’s possible that she’s hyper-aware of negative perceptions of Christianity because she’s been spending quality time with people who don’t share her faith, rather than writing them off. Of course she’s going to defend what for her has been so far a positive experience with the appearance of truth, but maybe something is filtering through the bubble she has grown up in. She’s still young; how many of us can honestly say we’ve maintained the same outlook on life we held at seventeen or eighteen years old?

Hey Greg, thanks for the comment. If i had it to do over, I would call attention to it in a different way – but I’m glad I mentioned something because others may have been bothered and didn’t want to deal with the inevitable “you’re being oversensitive”

No, Greg, I just meant I knew I’d get some flak and risk looking prudish. The journal article was about women’s responses but I think it goes for anytime you hear a remark that’s a little icky, maybe it’s borderline racist or homophobic or something else, and you wonder “should I say something?”

Oh, screw it… (dry?)
on the rocks, with an olive.

I appreciate it when people tell me I’m being oversensitive

Do you also appreciate it when people tell you something said might be offensive?

Do you also appreciate it when people tell you something said might be offensive?

As long as they allow me to put forward my point of view, yes. After all, just because someone gets offended, doesn’t necessarily mean the statement is offensive. Of course, I can think of some cases where it can be intentional. For example, where I see people quote mining, I might make a cutting remark.

Unfortunately, a great example of that is probably evolution and creationists. :-/

Obviously, one of the big problems with the internet is that it’s all text. If you can hear the tone of voice of someone, the thing that started this would almost certainly never have been an issue.

I’m sure I’m not the only one who’s got into internet… err… misunderstandings… because their humour isn’t always obvious through text. Especially when it comes to people who partake in discussions about religion online.

For example, the comment you replied to was meant humorously pretty much in its entirety. 😉

(And don’t feel you have to tell me you knew that… lol)

It would have been interesting to hear the writer of the above article speaking some of the sentences in it actually, for one thing it might help settle whether or not she really was whining.

I’ve got to say anyone over-reacting to this simple turn of a phrase crosses over that line from ardent feminist to feminazi.

I’ve got to say that when I hear someone use the word “feminazi” in a non-ironic fashion, I have trouble taking anything they say seriously.

I am impressed that you’ve managed to write such a stirring rant against feminazis without ever actually mentioning the actual word that people objected to, or the reasons they found it objectionable.

monkeymind,

So, describing exactly how we’re going to screw someone doesn’t make it more literal.

So you’re still going by this fantasy? Literally interpreting a common idiom. Well fuck me gently with a chainsaw.

How stupid of me for thinking that modifying a verb could change the the meaning of an expression.

Of course an adverb changes the meaning of an expression. It doesn’t however, change the verb from figurative to literal. That is stupid.

Now I know it’s fine here at Friendly Atheist to express disagreement with someone by telling her exactly how you want to fuck her.

You’re going to continually misrepresent this person? Well done you. Not that it’s unexpected considering this is how you roll. Instead of rightfully issuing an apology for misinterpreting someone, but more importantly making up the stuff about rape and sexism.

Fail. You have your opinion, Friendly but I would disagree.

On one hand you are saying you could get along and I believe you could. I believe I could. On the other hand that she says that the “question of belief too important to ignore” is too much to bear. The question of belief is not a question at all. It’s a question of madness or sanity.

I can see her point but I was raised in church. I’d rather not. She’s not my kind in a million years. I’d never respond to her profile on a dating site. I’d be concerned about adding her as a Facebook friend because that viewpoint she has. She’s just another cultist imitating ancient people when the modern people are making all the advances.

I totally disagree with her and with Friendly’s opinion on this matter. And that’s cool. That’s what this comments section is for, right, for me to say that when it comes up.