Serene of the Oakland Serenes

today is a fine day for blaming christian idiocy.

From:

I think identifying this as "Christian idiocy" is going a bit far; even the most conservative Christians I know would not support taking a psychotic woman off her meds. Of course, there are fringe elements out there, and Rusty Yates may well have been part of that.

From:

*grump*. i wrote a long reply, detailing exactly what role fundamentalist christianity had in the murders of yates' children, but while looking up a factlet my browser crashed, and i don't feel like retyping it all.

so, there it stands. i think fundamentalist christianity is to blame for the reactionary conformist rules it lays on people, and on women especially. both the yates' drank that koolaid, and nobody helped them find their way out of the morass. this wasn't just post-partum depression, she was slowly going insane for several years from all the pressures to be the perfect wife and mother and christian. she tried to kill (just) herself at least once. post-murders, pat robertson and his ilk were conspicuously silent about the role the fundamentalist milieu played in driving andrea yates over the edge of sanity. other christians were asking themselves some hard questions, but those guys? naw. don't want to rock the boat, the donations might fall off.

the most conservative christians i know are people like the preacher who wrote to andrea yates that bad children come from bad mothers, and that her role was informed by eve's sin. i only hope the rapture takes those people some time soon. it can't be soon enough; they're poison, and there is no christ in their christianity.

From:

subversive-mom.livejournal.com

The Yates were under the influence of a particularly extreme fringe Christian whackjob (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Peter_Woroniecki). Yes, fundamentalist Christianity is misogynistic, but not to this extreme.

Also, she has a history of schizophrenia. That's not something you're "driven" to, like depression. Did her circumstances make her illness worse? Almost undoubtedly. Did her circumstances--religious and otherwise--cause her not get the care she needed? Unquestionably, as was shown in court. Would she have been ill if she had been in different circumstances? Probably, to some extent.

Do I think fundamentalist Christianity has to answer for a lot of things? yes. But I think tarring all Christians or fundamentalists because of the bizarre harassment levelled at Yates by one extreme fringe preacher is inaccurate. BTW, none of the conservative Christians I know ever expressed anything but compassion for Andrea Yates, and several have expressed anger towards Rusty Yates.

From:

you know, there comes a point where fundamentalism crosses the line to "extreme", and american fundamentalism has gone across it long before it encompassed woroniecki. it is a hate-filled religion.

and no, i won't be respectful about that. i am not respectful about abusive practices. and the brush i tar with comes straight from their own hands; they don't like it, they can wash that tar off first before handing it to me.

i'll stop here because it's serene's journal. i was just getting tired of everybody harping on what a miserable sack rusty yates is, without even mentioning the role of that misbegotten religion. yup, he's a miserable SOB. but that damn religion sure had/has him in its grip, and it's high time somebody condemns that.

From:

People choose their religions. The choice of religion, and whether or not to follow its dictates when those become destructive of others, is a moral choice. Rusty Yates is guilty in my mind because he chose to follow such a religion.

Also, I guess I've been defending religion in part because your original comment blamed all Christianity. You may not have meant to do that, but it sounded like that to me. Tarring all Christianity with the brush of fundamentalism is a serious over generalization. There are many many of us out here who believe in equality of the sexes, who are pro-choice, anti-death penalty, against the war, supportive of GLBT rights, and who believe that while the Bible is divinely inspired and important to our faith and can guide us in an understanding of how to live in the world, is a document written by human hands for specific time and place and should be treated as such. We just don't get any media attention.

I *completely* agree that Pat Robertson and his ilk, and the brand of -- and I hesitate to call it Christianity, because it falls so far out of what Christ called people to be -- is evil and hateful, and those who practice it are often engaged in evil and hateful practices. (Although I stand by my statement that the fundamentalists that I know would not have acted like Rusty Yates, and have been critical of him. I realize that's not the same thing as them admitting that fundamentalism created a scenario which helped contribute to the tragedy.) I also agree that they have been given an inordinant amount of power because their leadership has to be very vocal and politically savvy. They are really scary.

From:

I *completely* agree that Pat Robertson and his ilk, and the brand of -- and I hesitate to call it Christianity, because it falls so far out of what Christ called people to be

Christ called people to violence. Christ told people how to treat their slaves. Christ told people to abandon their families in favor of God.

If you get to pick which parts of the Bible are "real" Christianity, then the Bible is worthless.

From:

Christ also spoke at a particular time and in a particular cultural context. If you take him out of that time and context, and insist on a literal reading, you are doing what fundamentalists do, albeit with the opposite results.

If you mean by he "called people to violence" the passage about "mother will be set against daughter, father against son," that passage can be read as either prescriptive ("this is what I am calling people to do") or descriptive ("this is what will happen"). If by "Christ told people to abandon their families," the people who he said things like that to were people who came to him asking to be disciples, not just anyone. As far as how to treat their slaves, again we're talking cultural context here (also, under the Law of Moses, slaves were to be freed every seven years.)

As I said, the Bible is a document that existed in a particular cultural context. It was also written down by human hands -- there are inconsistencies. No matter how divinely inspired it may have been, humans are fallible creatures.

The overarching message of the Gospels is one of love of other people. Jesus was not afraid to be around the undesirables of his day: lepers and tax collectors, and prostitutes, and insane people -- and women. I am firmly convinced that if Jesus were around today He'd be hanging out with the homeless people, and marching in the Pride parade. In the context of the times in which Jesus lived, his actions are extraordinary.

A priest I know once compared reading the Bible to eating a fish: simply because you can't eat the bones does not make the entire fish inedible.

From:

someotherguy.livejournal.com

All of which makes the point that not all Christians are evil hate-filled bigots, which no one here is likely to disagree with.

The point you're missing is that the evil hate-filled bigots are still real Christians running their lives according to Biblical principles. They're no less Real Christians TM because they ignore your favorite parts of the Bible any more than you're not a Real Christian TM because you ignore theirs.

From: (Anonymous)

I am so in love with you, not least because you just managed to put concisely what I've been trying to compose in my head for my whole lunch hour.

From:

*smoooooch*

From:

I would argue that they aren't living according to Biblical principles -- after all, they argue that I'm not. I've been told so. Often. They pray for me. : )

The second greatest commandment, Jesus said, was to love your neighbor as yourself. Maybe it's a lack of imagination, I fail to see how anyone who claims much of what a lot of the fundamentalists claim as their beliefs can be said to be doing that.

Part of the reason this matters is that their particular brand of Real Christianity (TM) is presented often in the media as being de facto being the sole brand of Real Christianity. The rest of us are often yelled at for not separating ourselves from them, for not condemning them loudly and strongly enough. (I had an exchange about this earlier this week on another blog.)

My comment about not seeing them as being true Christians was really sort of a stream of consciousness throw away comment. I didn't dream it would engender this much discussion.

From:

someotherguy.livejournal.com

I would argue that they aren't living according to Biblical principles -- after all, they argue that I'm not. I've been told so. Often. They pray for me. : )

You're all living according to Biblical principles. Either side, any side, can point to a passage that supports what they want to be true. That's kind of the problem. A good person who makes a point of living according to Biblical principles, and who announces that fact, validates the Bible which can then be used by bad people to support their position.

The second greatest commandment, Jesus said, was to love your neighbor as yourself.

Unless you use a different Gospel, in which case he says don't murder, don't steal, and honor your parents are the important commandments, but really you have to give everything to the poor.

In the Gospel you quote, the greatest commandment is to love God, and that's where the fundies have you. First of all you gotta do what God wants, which the Bible says includes all kind of horrible things, then only in the absence of specific instruction otherwise do you fall back to loving your neighbor.

Then there's the whole issue of who is meant by your neighbor. According to the commandments, your neighbor is the guy (as in male) who's wife and slaves you're not supposed to covet. Which kind of sucks if your the wife and your husband is pushing you to quit your meds and have another kid.

Maybe it's a lack of imagination, I fail to see how anyone who claims much of what a lot of the fundamentalists claim as their beliefs can be said to be doing that.

Really? Because about 20 seconds in a fundy chat room would tell you that they're claiming to save gays, liberals and uppity women from the fires of hell that they so richly deserve by forcing them to mend their ways.

Part of the reason this matters is that their particular brand of Real Christianity (TM) is presented often in the media as being de facto being the sole brand of Real Christianity. The rest of us are often yelled at for not separating ourselves from them, for not condemning them loudly and strongly enough. (I had an exchange about this earlier this week on another blog.)

This is kind of complicated, so I'm not sure I can make it come across right, but I'm going to try.

The problem, I think, is that you wait for one of these ass-hats to do something utterly outrageous, then you disown them as Not Real Christians who don't live according to Biblical Principles.

You don't protest their day-to-day asshattery, and more important you absolutely refuse to acknowledge that their asshattery has a Biblical basis.

That means that a month from now when the furor has died down the next asshat can still go to the Bible, pull out some passage that says women should submit to their husbands, and go along their merry, sexist way.

My comment about not seeing them as being true Christians was really sort of a stream of consciousness throw away comment. I didn't dream it would engender this much discussion.

Because in your mind, Christianity is Good, ergo anything that isn't good isn't Christianity but some sort of fake Christianity. This is extremely frustrating and more than a little insulting to those of us who aren't Christians and have to deal with pro-Christian bias on a daily basis.

From:

You don't protest their day-to-day asshattery

Whatever your other points, this is absolutely not true. I scream about their asshattery all the time. I don't view them as irredeemable, true, but I do decry what they do and say. Frequently.

You do not know me. You don't know how I am in real life, you don't know the decisions I make, the stands I take on issues. For you to make this assertion is nothing short of insulting.

I am not going to continue a conversation in which I am insulted. You may choose to belittle me, but I really have other things to do with my time than stand around defend myself.

From:

someotherguy.livejournal.com

Whatever your other points, this is absolutely not true. I scream about their asshattery all the time. I don't view them as irredeemable, true, but I do decry what they do and say. Frequently.

Good for you, but that's hardly typical of the plural "you".

You do not know me. You don't know how I am in real life, you don't know the decisions I make, the stands I take on issues. For you to make this assertion is nothing short of insulting.

That's true. All I know about you is that you came in here and dismissed an action that is very typical of a certain type of Christian as being non-Christian, and in so doing casually insulted every non-Christian on the planet. My apologies for assuming that your words here, your defense of Christianity as exclusively good and pure, and your dismissal of bad people as non-Christian in some way represented your actual views.

I am not going to continue a conversation in which I am insulted. You may choose to belittle me, but I really have other things to do with my time than stand around defend myself.

And so you walk away secure in the knowledge that your status as a Christian means you don't have to defend yourself, yet still wreathed in the warm glow of martyrdom. Sweet deal.

From:

Also, I guess I've been defending religion in part because your original comment blamed all Christianity.

it didn't, but i can certainly see why you read it that way -- heck, if i came across it by a random person i might read it that way. i was making a quickie comment in serene's journal, and serene's known me for years, and knows pretty much where i stand on the subject of religion and how i feel about generalizations, so i figured i could get away with shorthand.

though in the interest of full disclosure i can't say that i am particularly enamored with christianity overall -- my own experiences with it growing up were anything but positive, my experiences as an adult have only improved since i left the faith and stayed as far away from it as possible, its history is filled with dark spots, and many of its denominations adhere to subsets of beliefs i consider actively harmful. i don't think that it's overall been a force for good in the world, and many of its denomination have precious little to do with christ. i tend to blame paul, though that's a lot of blame for one little zealot, *wry grin*. it's not the only religion i look at askance by any means, but it's the one i grew up with, and the one prevalent in countries where i've lived, so i've had more experience with it than with any other, and i am better informed about its abuses, and more likely to rant about it.

but any individual christian i meet might well be a force for good, and i am aware of that, and try not to be outright insulting. i apologize for the original shorthand that could so easily be read as "all christians are idiots". i don't feel that way.

From:

It's my journal, but I'm really gaining a lot by having this discussion here, so don't stop if you don't want to.

I am going back in forth in my mind about whether this is more a feminist issue or a religious issue, and I don't think it would be easy to tease them apart. Part of why Christianity sucks (sorry, Pat -- I'm not saying Christians suck, but I do believe that the stuff you believe does) is that it codifies the subjugation of women.

I expect to be told that *real* Christians don't believe that, but it's right there in the Bible, which I studied faithfully for years, and it continues today with the force of tradition, text, and legislation, and it makes me furious.

From:

I don't think we've ever discussed my beliefs. I'm not sure you know what my beliefs are. I think you may be making assumptions about my beliefs based on a literalist reading of Scripture, which I do not ascribe to.

I believe in the Nicene Creed (http://anglicansonline.org/basics/nicene.html), except changing "Creator" for "Father", and excepting the bits about "one baptism for the forgiveness of sin." Note, nothing in that has anything at all to do with a political or social agenda. Nothing.

Now, if you think that the concept of a creator is bullshit, then I guess my beliefs do suck. (Note: I believe in a Creator God, and in evolution. As a blogger who I read regularly said, "I am not God's math teacher, I don't need to see all His work." I know a lot of people who think that position is inconsistent and stupid.) Or if you think the notion of Jesus sacrificing himself is barbaric (and I know a lot of people who do), then likewise. And if you find the idea of a physical resurrection not only ludicrous but dangerous in that it muddles people's thinking, then yes, my beliefs suck.

But don't say my beliefs suck based on any sort of social or political agenda.

You may choose to view me as not really Christian, as a result; heaven knows, fundamentalists have been insisting for years that Episcopalians aren't Christians. I don't know.

One of the worst things that happened to Christianity was that it became powerful, and lost its message. I really wish Constantine had never converted. And even before then, it started being influenced by Greek philosophy and other things. What was a radical movement became much less so -- beliefs about women's positions, for example, reverted to being very restricted.

Oh, and that stuff about Paul hating women? First of all, a lot of that is based on a couple of passages, one of which Paul may not have even written, (http://www.americancatholic.org/Messenger/Jul2006/Feature2.asp#F7) and both of which were written in the context of a society which was incredibly restrictive towards women. Much more so than Paul's writings were. And it completely ignores the fact the Paul repeatedly mentions women as being important parts of the leadership of the early church.

Lydia was the first Christian convert in what is today Europe, and head of the first church at Phillipi. Others, such as Prisca and Chloe and Phoebe, played important roles. Most importantly, if you look to the Gospels, the first witnesses to the resurrection, given the most important roles in witnessing to the world, were all women. It frustrates me to no end the denominations that refuse women equal status (up to and including ordination) based on a couple of passages in Paul when there are so many more examples of women playing significant leadership roles in the New Testament.

(I've had this argument with my conservative Antiochean Orthodox sister. We don't talk about religion anymore.)

So instead we end up, two millenia later, where instead of a church which celebrates a Lydia or a Phoebe, there are people who claim that women must be silent baby-making machines. And as far as I can see, that latter message is inconsistent with the Scripture's larger message.

From: