Thursday, March 02, 2006
Oh, yeah, baby ... just like that ...
Oh, man ... evangelical Christians and electric cattle prods. Wet dreams just don't get a lot better than that, do they?
LET'S THINK ABOUT THIS, SHALL WE? I figured even some of my regular readers might be a little grossed out by my attitude here so let's give this some thought, shall we?
That the Chinese government is not happy with Christian evangelists is no big secret -- it's right out there in the open for everyone to see and those evangelists know exactly what risks they're taking, so it's not like they can bitch and whine about what happens to them when they get caught.
Given the Right's love affair with what they like to call "personal responsibility," well, this is pretty much the perfect example of that, isn't it? Those people know what the consequences will be and yet they insist on evangelizing anyway. Under the circumstances, then, since they know what the end result will be, they have no basis for complaint. They want to preach; ergo, they should accept the "personal responsibility" for what's going to happen afterwards.
(Furthermore, for those people to defend their actions by cloaking themselves in the mantle of "religious freedom" is about as brain-dead as me saying my right to free speech gives me the right to walk into a biker bar and say that Harley riders are a bunch of pussies. Sure, technically, I have the "right" to do that, but I better not whine about it when they stuff me upside down into the women's toilet. Like they say, actions have consequences.)
And finally, these evangelists are typically the same right-wing bigots who are adamant that, when immigrants move here, well, those people better learn to do things our way. Our country, our rules -- that's the attitude. Well, then, perhaps they'd better figure out that, like it or not, other countries have their rules as well. And if you know what those rules are and choose to break them anyway, well, don't be surprised when you don't get a whole lot of sympathy.
In short, if you choose to do stupid things, a lot of people aren't going to feel sorry for you when the inevitable bad things happen.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
Okaaay.
I really hope that was just a moment of I-didn't-think-it-through schadenfreude.
Now, start thinking. People have (or should have) the right not to be rounded up and jailed at cattle-prod point for their beliefs. It doesn't matter if their beliefs are bizarre, irrational or even dangerous. They have that right. And it's vital that people of good sense and foresight defend and promote that right at every turn.
Who defines what's bizarre, irrational or dangerous? Whoever is in power, that's who. Today they may be rounding up people with whom you disagree profoundly. Tomorrow, they may decide that it's YOU who is bizarre, irrational and dangerous. And if (looking more like when, frankly) that time comes, you will want a well-established notion in circulation that the government cannot round people up at cattle-prod point and lock them up for their ideas.
What exactly does the Chinese government have against Christians (and other religions such as Falun Gong?) It isn't the quality of their ideas. It's the fact that they can muster large numbers of people, and the government sees that as a threat to their power.
In spite of the fact that I could reasonably be described as a religious person, I am happy to laugh with you at the folks who check what little brains they ever had at the church door. It's an appropriate response. I will be with you in the fight like hell against their attempts to force their bullshit on everyone else. But happiness in the face of extreme repression isn't appropriate, or smart.
ferdzy writes:
People have (or should have) the right not to be rounded up and jailed at cattle-prod point for their beliefs.
First, those people were not being oppressed for "their beliefs." They were being treated that way for explicitly evangelizing their beliefs. There's a difference. But there's a bigger point here.
Who's to say what fundamental rights people should have? I'm sure those evangelists would argue that preaching the gospel is a fundamental right that everyone is entitled to.
But, you know, a lot of women might argue that getting unrestricted access to birth control and family planning services is a fundamental right that they're entitled to and, as you know, those very same evangelists would almost certainly disagree and have spent years making sure women were denied those very rights.
When a group of religious loons have spent decades oppressing other people and stripping them of their basic social rights, well, yeah, there's some definite schadenfreude when they get their asses kicked around a little, isn't there?
lol! Your "explanation" only shows how much faster you can dig yourself into that hole.
I guess you don't have to feel any sympathy for those women who get beheaded in Muslim countries for not wearing their burkas. They were just asking for it, you know. And all those homosexuals over there who are stoned to death. Well, they need to just accept personal responsibility for their actions. You shouldn't feel bad for them when the inevitable bad things happen.
Guess you can't complain about people being put to death under the Old Testament Law, either. They knew the risks they were taking, so oh well!
Thanks for letting us know where you stand, CC, and for shooting yourself in the foot. Again.
First, those people were not being oppressed for "their beliefs." They were being treated that way for explicitly evangelizing their beliefs.
Um, CC, part of their beliefs includes evangelizing. It's part and parcel in being Christian. Though, like everything else about Christians, I wouldn't expect you to understand that.
Oh. Dear. It's always amusing to watch Jason grapple with logic, and logic lay a thorough smackdown on him.
I wrote:
First, those people were not being oppressed for "their beliefs." They were being treated that way for explicitly evangelizing their beliefs.
To which Jason blithered:
Um, CC, part of their beliefs includes evangelizing. It's part and parcel in being Christian.
Let me explain why Jason's defense is complete crap.
As I read it, Jason's position is that, since part of the evangelical mindset is that they must evangelize, that somehow lets them off the hook. Nonsense.
As an analogy, imagine that part of my religious beliefs are that I really, really dislike Chinese people and that it is part of my Divine Mission to slap them whenever I come across them.
So I spend an afternoon wandering around Toronto and, whenever I meet a Chinese person, I slap him or her. Not surprisingly, in short order, I will be arrested for assault and find myself in court.
Note, first of all, that I am not in court for my beliefs. Quite simply, no one gives a shit what I think of Chinese people. You can't be arrested for thinking.
Rather, I am in court for acting on those beliefs, but that defense isn't going to get me anywhere. There's no way I will be excused for my behaviour by claiming that my religious beliefs require me to slap Chinese people. Quite simply, having idiotic, lunatic religious beliefs is rarely a legal defense.
I'm sure you can see how this applies to the case of evangelists in China. No one there gives a rat's ass as to what those evangelists believe. But if their beliefs require them to do stupid things, that's no one's fault but theirs.
Get the point?
Evangelizing isn't physical assault, CC. Even you aren't stupid enough to not see the difference.
Jesus Christ, Jason, why don't you fuck off until you figure out what an "analogy" means?
What an unspeakable dimwit.
"Other sects have adopted unorthodox beliefs, and infighting and competition for adherents have sometimes resulted in violence. On Monday, 17 members of the Three Ranks of Servants church went on trial Monday on charges of killing of 20 members of a rival group, Eastern Lightning."
Seems there's a legitimate need to keep an eye on these groups. Though some are peaceful, there is also a significant trend toward violence shown here. It's a gangland type mentality; 'believe our way or we'll kill you'.
By the way, Jason has just got himself banished from this site once again. And, no, it's not censorship. It is, of course, just me "moderating" comment submissions.
And Jason being a dumbfuck. That, too.
I guess you don't have to feel any sympathy for those women who get beheaded in Muslim countries for not wearing their burkas. They were just asking for it, you know. And all those homosexuals over there who are stoned to death. Well, they need to just accept personal responsibility for their actions.
I'm with Jason on this one. Its their own culture they are fighting, and its right and appropriate that other Christians view them as heroic. The article didn't say they were 'evangelizing' the way you seem to imply, it was a school and place of worship.
They weren't bitching and whining, there was nothing to say they weren't willing to accept responsability for their actions. I don't see why they shouldn't though, I would.
We're not talking about missionaries here, going someplace they're not wanted just to cause change.
Sorry, CC. You've gone off the deep end here. You are actually cheering on an opressive government who is arresting and emprisoning people engaged in civil disobedience -- people who are simply trying to express their own individual freedoms.
This goes way beyond a knee-jerk reaction. This posting is everything that you accuse Jinx of, and you are proving his opinions about you to be correct.
Sorry, Jim, your argument doesn't hold up but you'll have to wait until I'm back from lunch to expand on that.
CC – I think you've lost it on this one. If I understand you:
1. These people are hypocrites.
Don't know if this is true, and not all right-wing Christians are the same, but just for the sake of argument I'll let you have this one. It does not mean that it is now ok to attack hypocrites. If you were to condemn the attacks while noting the hypocritical nature, and the likelihood of the victims being willing to engage in exactly the same type of behaviour this would in my mind be the way it should be done. Keep in mind that just like a stopped watch, even a hypocrite can occasionally be correct.
2. These people know the risks they are taking.
Martin Luther King Jr. also knew the risks he was taking. I have met someone who worked as a body guard for him. His comments were that Dr. King deliberately sought out locations where he knew violence would be used against him. I consider Dr. King to be an extremely brave person. I do not consider that the violence against him was in any way justified.
3. You haven't said so in so may words, but I hear you saying that proselytizing is an ugly, violent thing in its own right.
I agree. Unfortunately it is also a slippery slope, one that could potentially engulf anyone. In particular it could engulf those who engage in internet politics.
4. They are just asking for trouble. It should come as no surprise.
see #2.
5. This isn't a case of religious freedom.
You've completely lost me on this one. Looks like a case of religious freedom to me. It is possible that it is a case of hypocrisy, but that does not change whether it is a case of religious freedom. Being able to seek converts is part of freedom of religion.
Well, then, perhaps they'd better figure out that, like it or not, other countries have their rules as well. And if you know what those rules are and choose to break them anyway, well, don't be surprised when you don't get a whole lot of sympathy.
I must admit that when I was part of a small group of students at KCI (high school for those not in the area) fighting against the lord's prayer and bible readings being forced upon us each morning, that we didn't get a lot of sympathy from most people. (Though there were some Christians who backed us.) I guess you could say that a harassing phone call from a member of the Waterloo County Board of Education was deserved.
I don't think that it is up to me to decide for other people whether it is reasonable to walk into a biker bar and say Harley riders are a bunch of pussies. I think it is stupid, you think it is stupid, but it is not our decision. The dominant reaction that I remember to my demands that the Christian religion not be shoved down my throat each morning was that I was being stupid.
In short, if you choose to do stupid things, a lot of people aren't going to feel sorry for you when the inevitable bad things happen.
I may or may not choose sympathy for those who are being persecuted in your post, but I will condemn the Chinese government for their actions. I will feel that the Christians are being wronged. Again that does not necessarily mean I will feel sympathy for them, but I will feel sympathy for their plight.
edwin
I wouldn't say I'm grossed out by your attitude, but I am very, very disappointed.
Speaking now with my left-wing, feminist, vaguely socialist hat on, I have to say that I want the right to tell other people about my ideas, to discuss those ideas with people sympathetic to my views and argue about them with people who are not sympathetic to them. It's not enough for me to hold these ideas in my head and never let them out to see the light of day.
Some people might call that proselytizing.
I certainly think that people who don't like my ideas have the right to tell me to fuck off and stop bugging them. What I really, really, really don't want them to be able to do is to round me up with cattle prods and stick me in jail.
The separation of church and state is vital; no argument with you there. But there is an enormous difference between saying the church does not get to define how the state acts and saying that the state gets to persecute people who don't agree with it.
It's very embarrassing for me to have to agree with Jason, who has always struck me as being completely out-to-lunch. He certainly needs to work a little on the idea of "Christian love".
Your point on the difference between beliefs and actions is important; but I can't see how you can apply it in this case. All beliefs will lead to some sort of action. If the action is not harmful to others, it must be allowed.
If, I say IF, members of some groups of Christians are killing rivals, they need hardly be prosecuted on the basis of their religious beliefs. Murder charges should be quite sufficient, and more to the point.
The vast majority of the Chinese christians mentioned in the article were studying and holding religious services together. If you think those are activities the government should be able to crack down on, well, all I can say is I sure don't want to live in any country run by you!
I have always looked upon evangelical missionaries as cultural rapists who have no reqard or respect for the beliefs of the people they prosytelise. They rip apart families and communities for their own, essentially selfish reasons and, in my view, get what they deserve.
Alison
CBC Headline: A Quebec school board was wrong to tell a 12-year-old Sikh boy he could not wear his ceremonial dagger in the classroom, as his faith requires, Canada's top court ruled unanimously Thursday.
Follows these comments...How can a will or a rule of a minority, defended in the name of religion, be imposed over a majority, particularly when safety concerns are at stake. What will happen now with flying, will daggers be allowed on board the aircraft?
This is typical of the response on this issue. Religious freedom only applies to back-stabbing, born-again, bible beltin' buffoons, other religions, well, they can just conform or go home.
Post a Comment