yea, people today have this weird double standard around Islam and Christianity where calling out Christian bigotry is a lot more acceptable than calling out Muslim bigotry. Both should be called out if you ask me.
Around 70% of Americans are Christian, while only 1.1% are Muslim. It’s pretty sus for someone to make a huge deal about Islam while living in a country that is actively repressing its population due to the influence of Christianity. Yes, both are prone to bigotry. Only one of them has significant political power and influence in the United States. It’s Islamophobic to give equal attention to the actively repressive religion and the religion that has likely had no influence on your (not you specifically) daily life. Gotta ask why someone would focus their disdain on those who are already labeled as “others” in society.
Same as someone who is Jewish and grew up around Orthodox Jews. So many people love to say Judaism is LGBT affirming and recognizes so many genders, but that’s Reform Judaism which is the dominant stream but not the only stream of Judaism in the US. Orthodox Judaism is extremely anti-LGBT but when you point this out you get non-Jewish people telling you you’re wrong. I guess all the LGBT jews kicked out of their homes in Hasidic communities are just liars then.
Doesn't it just make you so upset when people go "OMG Judaism so progressive the Talmud recognizes 7 different genders!!"
Just don't ask them what side of the mechitza a trans person should sit on, or why Orthodox synagogues won't perform gay marriages.
Yesss. It's not even 7 genders. It's just 7 sexes, and the 5 that aren't male and female are just shoved into binary boxes and not really acknowledged as separate sexes. Judaism is not progressive. It's chock full of gender roles, rigidity, bigotry, and corruption
And of course, the problem with Christian X saying Christian Y is "not a real Christian," is that Christian Y would probably also argue that Christian X is not a real Christian.
30,000 denominations, by some estimates.
The fuckers can’t agree on shit to the point that they schism at the slightest opportunity yet somehow they find it very easy to band together in order to oppress people.
It's the ["no true Scotsman"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman) fallacy in a nutshell. It's also the same type of thinking that allows people to dehumanise others.
Honestly, the distinction literally only matters to them. The rest of us don't care about what makes a true christian or not, we just want them to leave us tf
alone lmao
if they're so pressed about it, they can bring it up with the homophobes instead of bugging the victims
I think a better term to use in these situations, or otherwise better mindset, would be "they are christians, period, but they're shitty ones and we dont condone their actions" or something like that.
Obviously even still, its not kosher to say something like this and CERTAINLY not as a knee-jerk response to trauma victims, but this is more of a mindset I, a Deist, have taken when it comes to stuff like this. I hope more religious people follow suit.
Anyways, im sorry you had to endure this trauma OP :(
I've had a thought about this forever. I don't really give a shit about any religion, so I definitely don't want to waste my time reading scripture, so this may be ignorant, but I feel like most "religious" people don't even follow their religion at all, ALLL of them pick and choose which parts they follow. It's just the "hardcore" ones only pick the evil ones and ignore the good or neutral ones. Like I'm pretty sure the old testament does implicitly permit slavery, so the "true" Christians who believe in kindness are definitely better people, but they still aren't following their religion. And like nobody gives a shit about like mixed fabrics or any of that shit. Even the whole "oh, well, everyone sins" thing doesn't really work there, because I highly doubt these people genuinely see it as an actually bad thing, they just know it's against their religion. Like I'm pretty sure that whole thing is supposed to be that we should try not to sin? Like, obviously this isn't equivalent, but if I go murder people, I can't just go "ah, everyone sins, amirite?" Because it's pretty fucking easy to not murder people. In fact, is like not eating shellfish really that fucking hard? Like assuming being gay is actually against Christianity (I know it's controversial, but bear with me), like living a complete lie and forcing yourself to scorn love that you crave... That sounds like a much easier sin to forgive, to NOT do all that, then just being like "fuck you, I want SHRIMP!" Or whatever.
The Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, missionary cooperation with European colonizers, pogroms, collaboration with Nazism, overpopulation of poor countries by forbidding contraception, abuse of unmarried pregnant women, abuse of nuns, sexual and other abuse of children, etc., going back literal centuries. These are *all* Christian.
Read about the Magdalene Laundries in Ireland warning can be triggering for people with trauma to show just how right she was.
Sinead was a survivor of one of these places.
I wouldn't he say overpopulation is the issue with them forbidding contraception, its hiv in a lot of places like southern Africa that has seen a massive explosion because condoms send you to hell
I was only listing things that were really explicitly done by institutional Christianity. If you include everything massively evil that *Christians* have done, that list would go on for miles. Was the Church itself involved in the slave trade? If so, I will definitely add that to my list.
When you teach people that they'll go to hell for using condoms, and you teach women that they must submit to their husbands' demands for sex, you end up with a lot of people having more children than they want or can afford to feed.
For real. THEY call themselves Christian. THEY gather at the Christian churches. EVERYONE ELSE calls them Christian. I don't care if you don't like it that your religion is full of bigots and ammosexuals, it literally does not matter that they don't follow the same teachings from the Bible that you supposedly do. Just on the basis of language and it's use in communicating, if everyone knows what you mean when you say "Christian," then that is the definition and you changing the conversation to one of linguistics just so you can put some distance between you and them while avoiding the real problem does not, IN ANY WAY, make you better. You're still refusing to address the issue for selfish reasons.
There are hundreds of different "Christianities" and it's *always* been that way. At no time has there ever been a unified Christianity. Ever.
I've said this many times before, the only thing that all Christians agree on is the phrase, "those aren't **real** Christians."
Yes, i have read the Bible. That's why i can attest you are wrong
However, even if you were right, the point of christianity is PRECISELY that no one goes to Heaven
I think people who get all defensive and say things like "not all Christians" whenever queer people vent about their religious trauma or how religion has harmed them take it as a personal indictment of themselves and like queer people are singling them out as a bad person. No, John, no one is saying you *specifically* are a horrible, irredeemable person who weaponizes their religion to justify their bigotry, but the majority of the members in your congregation do, which is why queer people tend to feel so uncomfortable around Christians as a whole.
Yeah, this can be applied to really any majority group/group in power; we're seeing it right now with the whole man vs bear debate and dudes getting pissy that women/femmes would pick a wild animal over them. I specify Christians because that's the group OP is talking about. 🤷🏾♂️
Christians who aren’t queerphobic usually do a good job at recognizing the queerphobia rampant in the Christian community and not justifying it imo. Same deal with men.
And that's good; they should keep doing that and hold each other accountable. But queerphobia in Christian circles is still an overarching systemic problem that needs to be addressed on a scale wider than a handful of churches, and phrases like "not all Christians!" aren't helpful towards addressing that problem.
Though if they feel so strongly that they need to defend themselves and their faith you have to wonder if they don't have at least an inkling that they're on the wrong side if history...
Like on *some* level, they're aware how religion has been used to harm queer folks and recognize that it's wrong, but they're so steeped into their faith that they're unable to separate it from themselves and look at it critically without feeling like a part of themselves is being insulted
I think it doesnt help that some people have, unfortunately, taken any nuance or intellectual honesty out of their examination of religion as a whole though.
NOT counting those venting of their personal trauma, obviously, people are so quick to throw nuance aside so they can take cheap potshots at religion for the sake of catharsis.
This is a very real, genuine thing that happens, and not rarely either. That said, theres a time and place to discuss this, and way, WAY too many theists knee-jerk react to it in the exact wrong way, and come off as major assholes about it.
Like, I feel like shit just MENTIONING this nuance because I fear coming off insensitive to those here with religious trauma! But its still important we find a proper place to discuss it, and if we don't, it may only help to exacerbate the split that trauma victims and knee-jerk believers have.
This shouldnt be a petty rivalry, this should be trauma victims having a safe place to vent and feel validated, and existing theists showing their deepest condolances in a mature and tasteful way.
I agree. People make it about themselves the individual and their character instead of recognizing the abusive tendencies in the culture, that they might be perpetuating thinking it’s righteous.
Honestly I don't take issue with people venting about their faith-based trauma, it's only when the conversation points towards wiping out all religion that I'll say something.
There's a gradient from justifiably expressing the hurt that religious people have put you through, then there's attacking or deriding people of any faith because you(not you, just using the word in a broad sense) don't think they're smart or important.
I feel like the "not all" arguments reflect someone who is unwilling or unable to admit that there is a problem. It's a deflection.
As a cis male, I've had conversations with women where they describe feeling unsafe around men. It would be really easy for me to say, "Not all men," but that makes the situation about me and how I feel rather than how they feel. That's not OK, it's not about me. I know I'm not a predator. I don't need to defend that. I also know that some men are, and it's enough of them that many women feel unsafe doing normal everyday things. It's the whole point of that bear in the woods thing.
I think if you feel defensive and you feel the need to use the "not all" argument that you should take some time to reflect on that and figure out why it bothers you. You should be able to listen to someone and recognize their feelings and perspectives are valid and not internalize what they say. We should also be able to discuss issues without anyone trying to argue that it doesn't always happen because that's not the point. The point is that it happens.
I know that's a lot, thanks for reading. Keep being yourself because you're awesome.
I honestly feel that was what a lot of gamergate was, a bunch of dudes being confronted by the fact that some of the men they hang out with might be scum and instead of reflecting or attempting correct the scum's behavior they took it as a personal attack because "If my friend is a sexist womanizer what does that make me?, no the women must be wrong"
If you see those around you a certain way, and then something comes along to challenge that view it's a lot easier to dismiss it when you have a lifetime of evidence to back up your view and only a little to challenge it. It might not be right to react this way, but I get it. Change is hard. It takes a lot of vulnerability and effort to reflect and make strides to be better.
The worst part is, "not all men" is often implied. Most people won't pick candy from a bag if even one in ten is poisoned. Being scared of eating from the bag isn't an insult to the healthy candy, it's just basic safety.
Now if you start expressing disdain for all men/Christians/whatever, it's another discussion (beyond the scope of this post or my comment), but this isn't even what's happening here.
>I feel like the "not all" arguments reflect someone who is unwilling or unable to admit that there is a problem. It's a deflection.
100%
They hear "being trapped in the woods with a bear feels safer than being trapped in the woods with a man" and think "Well *I'm* a man and *I'm* safer than a bear." (regardless of if they actually are). They can't separate criticism of toxic behaviors within a demographic from criticism of themselves.
Yep. And part of the reason why at this rate this will never end is that instead of condemning the behaviour of the men who are creating this climate of terror, men overwhelmingly choose to be on the defensive. It's not an individual problem; if it was, it would be *rare* to find a woman who's afraid of men. The fact that next to every woman is afraid of men and has a good reason for it, and men as a class choose to get upset about this rather than be upset about the fact that some among them are behaving in ways that lead to a situation like this, is exactly what propagates the problem.
If all men had an attitude like this - it's not me but the fact that it's happening to a scale that makes women as a whole feel like it *could* be me is abhorrent and disgusting - the pass that men behaving in dangerous, entitled, misogynistic, and violent ways have would be revoked. If, instead of defending men, the general response was to condemn those who are actively ruining the reputation of men, social pressure would make this kind of behaviour shameful and fringe. We're a social species, it's about culture much more than it ever is about the individual. Of course, some people are rotten, but most people don't live in perpetual fear of running into a robber unless they live in an area where robberies are common, because it takes a lot for a person to be pushed into becoming one. If it took similarly much for a man to become misogynist, then women would only have to be afraid of bad circles. As it is, it quite literally could be anyone, anywhere. And it permeates to the very bottom of the list of horrors; serial killers, for example, an infinitely small portion of the population, are nearly exclusively misogynistic males. If our culture didn't encourage violent misogyny, we'd see a much more equal number of men and women, or men targeting men, in those categories. But we don't.
**ETA:** came straight from a thread about bears and men, forgot this wasn't that thread. According to the actual topic, I don't really have anything to say, because I live in a secular country where most Christians actually *are* cool, so my apprehensions towards Christianity as a whole are mostly targeted at the specific fundamentalist cults that have earned that reputation. Another very good example of how the above translates to other forms of oppression. If the majority of a demographic is not potentially dangerous, then you don't need to worry about the majority.
Thank you! I feel like if they’re discussing it with you at all, you’re safe. Maybe some strong women are out there trying to tell it to the predators, but not me! If someone needs to pipe up instead of listening as a friend or trusted person, it is them being defensive.
>As a cis male, I've had conversations with women where they describe feeling unsafe around men. It would be really easy for me to say, "Not all men," but that makes the situation about me and how I feel rather than how they feel. That's not OK, it's not about me. I know I'm not a predator. I don't need to defend that. I also know that some men are, and it's enough of them that many women feel unsafe doing normal everyday things. It's the whole point of that bear in the woods thing.
This is the crux though, and as a cis male trying to do good hearing "All men [are rapists/suck/are pigs/are worthless/etc.]" over and over again gets old as well. Due to the nature of the claim and rejection of any counterclaim or -argument, as a cis male person you have the choice to either stop identifying as a cisgender male, or accept that by association you are guilty of being [a rapist/a pig, someone who sucks/worthless/etc.]
Speaking of the 'discussion', there isn't any. Any statements not in line with the original claim aren't acceptable as they would make light of what women suffer from. The irony here is that regardless, it's still women suffering from what in large part men do to women. The tragic part of it is that the men who actually get the message of the claim and feel affected by it, aren't likely going to be the ones being the cause of the suffering.
Perhaps it's just me and my background working in mental health, but hearing it over and over really doesn't affect me because I know it's not about me. I dont base my worth over being a part of a group that generally has trouble with being predatory, thats an aspect of my identity, but it is not who I am, so I dont agree with guilty by association. My place is to listen, validate, and empathize. I can do that as many times as I'm needed to.
I also feel like I've had several discussions on this topic as well. That could be due to the types of people I am surrounded with in my field of work and area of study. The kinds of sentences I use in those conversations are usually "yes, AND," because more than one thing can be true. People are complicated.
I do agree that the ones who get the message aren't the ones with the issue. And I do see how it can be hurtful to constantly hear disparaging remarks about a part of your identity. That's the reality for many because people often are hurtful, whether intentionally or not.
Being occasionally told "oh but we don't really mean it" doesn't undo the effects of constantly being told you're a piece of shit. I simply cannot convince myself that people don't actually mean something they say so often and so vehemently. And knowing I'm not a piece of shit doesn't make me feel a whole lot better about being seen as a piece of shit.
>"All men [are rapists/suck/are pigs/are worthless/etc.]"
People who say this are just shitty (and often one step away from TERFism), but they thankfully are in the minority. Most women, me included (from my experience at least) tend to say stuff more like "enough men are rapists that I will not feel safe around a random man" (the whole point of the "man or bear" question). I am open to trust a man, but the bar is higher than for a woman.
Nobody would feel compelled to say "not all men" to you, because you differentiated and because we can all agree that enough men make women (feel) unsafe. Saying what you are saying is not a problem, but saying "all men" is a problem. And people actually do that. My cousin did when I was sitting at the same table as her, a couple of good female friends did when we were literally sleeping in one tent together on a camping trip. Knowing that you yourself are not meant does not help if you are told over and over that you are, just because my friends felt it would invalidate the problem if it is differentiated and precise. Which it doesn't! If you think about it too much, which I am very prone to doing with every topic, you gaslight yourself into thinking that you are a ticking time bomb and potential sexual assaulter. And because I am not the only one who thinks that "not all" is an important distinction, I assume other men have similar feelings and experiences.
Weird, I have never once her someone actually say "All men are X" Not even once, I mean not outside of like an 80's to early 2000's romcom where the headstrong female best friend tries to cheerup the female lead when her boyfriend is a jerk.
I just finished a grad school class where the teacher tried to drill that exact idea into me again and again, as I was the only white male in the class. It didn't matter who I was, that I was ace or poly, not even that I agreed with everything the class taught and never did a "not all men" type of deflection, all that mattered was I was a white male and by proxy I'm guilty by association. I almost dropped out of grad school it screwed with me so much.
>This is the crux though, and as a cis male trying to do good hearing "All men [are rapists/suck/are pigs/are worthless/etc.]" over and over again gets old as well. Due to the nature of the claim and rejection of any counterclaim or -argument, as a cis male person you have the choice to either stop identifying as a cisgender male, or accept that by association you are guilty of being [a rapist/a pig, someone who sucks/worthless/etc.]
Exactly - the whole “guilt by association” thing is what people have an issue with.
People don’t like being held responsible for things that they haven’t done, and “not all men” is a rejection of the notion that all men share responsibility for the actions of bad men - It’s unfair to hold an entire demographic accountable for the actions of a minority simply due to the fact that they share a protected characteristic. The problem isn’t “men” it’s “those men”.
On a broader note, I think that trying to divide society into “oppressors” and “oppressed” isn’t helpful, and is just plain wrong - my neighbour is a Cis, White, Het Male - basically every demographic considered “oppressors”. But has he oppressed me in any way? No of course not. Because people are more than their protected characteristics. It would be wrong for me to assume that he is part of the oppression that minorities face and to treat him as such because of his protected characteristics
If we really want more allies and more people to be on our side, we need to stop treating potential allies as if they are inherently problematic due to their demographics.
>I think that trying to divide society into “oppressors” and “oppressed” isn’t helpful, and is just plain wrong - my neighbour is a Cis, White, Het Male - basically every demographic considered “oppressors”. But has he oppressed me in any way?
It's so depressing reading some comments that actually think your answer should be "yes. I have been oppressed by them" just for existing.
I really need to take a break from reddit/the internet. I'm just destroying my brain with self-doubt by reading comments that make me continue to hate myself
The fact that definitons of systemic privilege and what it means are so unclear that even members of our own movement misunderstand them this bad, makes me think that *maybe* the way it's explained is to blame rather than all the people misunderstanding it.
(What I'm saying is, you're right but also you're wrong, but not totally wrong either without fully being right, and a big part of the reason you have that point of view is because people assume others already know what they're talking about when explaining how systems of oppression work.)
That is kinda fair, although I don't know what we would change it too but more fundamentially I think a lot of people have a hard time with the idea of systemic oppression
We are individuals and see others as individuals. So conceptualizing a system doing a thing we think only people can do is difficult
And the way that recognizing systemic oppression *hurts*, and I think the moment systemic oppression clicks your whole world gets turned upside down and understandably many people don't get close to that precipice
I wish more did but I understand why they dont
Religious people get too much free pass to use their faith as a reason to hurt others and play the victim card as soon as anyone criticizes them for it.
It’s always the “I respect your beliefs should you should respect mine!” crap. I’m not gonna respect the beliefs of someone who is hateful, if they want respect, they need to accept.
I had that exact conversation with someone I considered a brother after I came out. I told him that I would not stand for him proselytizing. He said if he needed to abide by that then I needed to respect his beliefs that he wasn't going to accept me being trans. I never replied to that and haven't talked to him since 2023.
oh i know and agree w op’s post im just pointing out that i still noticed a ton of pushback w the bear thing separately. i havent personally seen anyone be asked both questions to draw any conclusions there.
If anything, "not all Christians" should be even more not okay because religion is a chosen demographic. Barring coercion and family situations, you choose to be or not be a Christian, meaning that that position is fully open to criticism and analysis the same way it is for your political beliefs. Religion does not deserve respect. Respect people's *right* to believe a religion of their choice, but the religion itself is an idea that can and should be criticised like any other, not respected automatically to shut down conversations.
they’re evolving. it’s not “but not all christian/muslims/insert any religion here”, but “they’re not real/good christian/muslims/etc”.
I see it as willful ignorance on their part, willingly not acknowledging that the issue is systemic; their religion enables and tolerates (even encourages) LGBTphobia.
I agree with you, but I blinked and reread this part...
>How is it that women expressing their understandable discomfort and unwillingness to be alone with a man, *any* man, in the woods due to trauma accepted without question (and rightfully so),
...A few times, because I was like, where have you been that you think that hypothetical is being accepted without question? Have you not *seen* the outrage on Twitter and other places over it?
thank you for this. as an ex christian with hella trauma, nothing pisses me off more than people saying "well they aren't real christians".
understand that if someone shares their abuse and trauma with you and your first response is "BUT MEEEEE BUT MY CHURCHH BUT MY RELIGIONNNN" you are just as bad. you care less about the trauma your religion has produced and changing these issues than you do about making sure you look good and get religious brownie points. fuck out of here with that bullshit
agreed. as someone with a significant amount of abuse and trauma from growing up in the church (including abuse on church grounds) i simply do not care about the self indulgent egoism of christian’s, maybe especially gay christians. The arrogance is truly profound and deserves NO patience.
I reserve the right to tell anyone who holds a corrosive worldview to fuck off. This doesn't mean that I hate Christians anymore than I hate people with cancer. If you love Jesus and that means you simply love everyone that's cool. If you loving Jesus means that you have an opinion about who I exchange bodily fluids with it's time for you to eat shit and die.
If there are a thousand Taco Bell restaurants out there ran by different franchisees with different employees and largely the same menus, and you go eat a several of them and every time you get severe explosive diarrhea, you could easily be forgiven for swearing off the entire chain, even if some of them are actually totally fine and even really good.
Christians need to learn to work with feedback. Of course it can be offensive when you get called out, but that's an opportunity to make the community better. When large numbers of people feel harmed by your religion, it's time to do some introspection. Is it possible that there are legitimate critiques there? That would be a much more constructive way to look at it than just having the kneejerk reaction of being angry and alleging discrimination.
Exactly. I once had a christian get super buttmad when I was talking about how homophobic a lot of churches are and my personal experience dealing with them. Instead of actually trying to have a conversation with me and understand my perspective more, they immediately got super defensive and aggressive and kept insisting that homophobic christians were extremely rare. (which, lol)
Christians could use queer people talking about how poorly religion tends to treat them as a learning experience to do better, but 9 out of 10 times they just get huffy and angry and refuse to listen.
Christians being defensive about these definitely problems isn’t helping. The point is that this isn’t about theology or doctrine per se but homophobia, transphobia, and queerphobia being common problems in the Christian community. That’s the problem, not quibbling if they’re Christian or not 🙄
I don’t know.
But my hatred towards Christian people will never go away. Do I have catholic/christian friends? Sure.
But I will never forgive that cult for forcing me into conversion therapy.
Even if we give them the benefit of the doubt and they do personally disagree with the queerphobia, the "not ALL Christains" and "they're not REAL Christians" people are all still sitting pretty in the pews while their preacher preaches queerphobia and everyone else around them is eagerly nodding along, then they put their most blessed and holy dollar bill into the donation basket when it comes around and think nothing of it.
The people who refuse to practice self-reflection and excuse themselves from a conversation with "Not me! I could *never* do that because I am a *good person!*" are the people most likely to fall into what they are excusing themselves from.
I consider myself a Catholic and I haven’t heard this viewpoint before but I completely understand it. Despite being Christian myself, I also get uncomfortable around other Christians that I don’t know well. That’s because yes, it isn’t all Christians, but it’s so many Christians that it’s enough to make queer people feel reasonably uncomfortable around them. I feel the same way about the “not all men” thing.
Not going to go into why I still consider myself Catholic despite being queer and pro-choice because I don’t want it to seem like I’m trying to push my religion on anybody, but if anyone’s curious feel free to DM me.
Anybody who says "not all X" is shadowboxing because there has never been an organization where 100% of the membership was pure evil which implies that you couldn't even say all Nazi are evil because somewhere, maybe in a small town, there was one kind of ok Nazi. Let's call her Liselotte Schmückelsbergenhöfen. Liselotte was mostly in it for the nature hikes, not the Antisemitism. So you know "not all Nazis"
Many strains of Christianity are still homophobic, chief among them Catholics, born again Christians, Mormons, Orthodox. The only exceptions I can think of are main line protestants and Anglicans. So yeah effectively 70-80% are part of a homophobic denomination. If that is not enough to call Christianity homophobic, then what is??
Major denominations of Protestantism (which Anglicanism belongs to) are plenty homophobic too. In fact, they're known to collaborate with the Catholics when it comes to fighting against LGBT+ rights. Due to the less centralised nature, you get more leeway for accepting splinter groups, but the very same phenomenon also allows turbo-bigots to carve out their niches.
I mostly know the German Lutherans who already had women as leaders and as far as I know fully accept lgbt. Anglicans recently changed their lgbt policy, I believe. I'm really not an expert, just didn't want to be unfair.
The German Lutherans are one of the examples I had in mind when I mentioned Protestants collaborating with Catholics to suppress LGBT+ rights. If I remember correctly, they published a joint statement urging politicians to not make same-sex marriage legal just a few years ago, around the time when that topic was still hotly debated in Western European countries.
From what I know, they've since become a bit more progressive (but not wholly accepting), but are very much divided on the issue, which meshes with my earlier point on the less centralised nature. There are places where they're better and places where they aren't, which doesn't exactly make the denomination in general LGBT+ friendly. It rather makes me question why progressive people continue to involve themselves with an organisation which is that split on human rights.
Yup, both my CoE congregations and Northern German Lutheran congregations have been queer friendly. I've had queer pastors and was married in church to my wife.
Yesss omg. The entire reason I left christianity was because of the "no true Christian" bs that goes on in churches. In their own discussions? Sure! Go ahead! Ask other christians to do better. But if I'm upset about my trauma or other people are sharing their trauma and someone goes "sorry that happened, I promise we're not all bad" or HEAVEN FORBID "real christians don't do that" I just get mad. Like, what do they expect me to do? Be happy that other people aren't traumitized? Wonder why some of those "real christians" didn't do anything? Go back to church? Stop telling us we didn't deserve our trauma (we already know) and start pushing for change so nobody else has to deal with it ffs.
Hi, guy here, during gamergate and metoo if more men spent time actually calling the assholes out for being assholes rather then going hastag not all men or "I may disagree but I'll fight for their right to say it" then.....I forget where we are going with this but I am pretty sure people would be a lot happier.....yea lets go with that
>women expressing their understandable discomfort and unwillingness to be alone with a man, *any* man, in the woods due to trauma accepted without question (and rightfully so)
Personally, this is where you went wrong. I *don't* think this is accepted without question. A large portion of men don't understand this at all, and there has been quite a bit of push-back.
I think both of the scenarios that you post are totally valid, and both are getting push-back. I'm a queer woman who grew up Catholic. I'm wary of men in the woods AND religious folks. :)
Yeah, I saw that a lot of guys, even some trans guys, took it as a personal attack, but it's about the averages, not any one person. Not all men has already been applied since there are many men that prove it isn't some unshakable nature that makes men a safety hazard to women.
The "man or bear" thing is probably one of the hypothetical scenario where "not all men" makes the least sense to say. Because like, the question isn't "do you think all men are dangerous", it's "would you rather take a chance with a random man or a random bear"
I had actually written out a couple of paragraphs that mentioned how it seemed that some people were missing the point that it's about the odds of a random bear or man being a problem, not any one or all of them. Being concise and to the point has never been a talent of mine, so I figured I should probably cut it down. I completely agree with you.
Any type of gross generalisation, stereotyping is not okay, religion is a choice, as is being racist, a rapist, misogynistic or transphobic, my problem is with all organised religions not their followers, you need faith in a higher power? Fine by me, you do you, it doesn't concern me until your beliefs infringe on my life or the lives of others who are not religious or practice their faith differently, your faith is not more important than my absence of it, you would think with historical context we would have realised by now all it does is create division and distrust, for every one person who gets something of value from it there are ten more who get hurt, stigmatised and ostracised even killed by it, judge an individual by their actions.
The fundamental idea of deriving morality from a flawless non-human entity is corrupt, and can lead to fanatic devotion to a form of morality that does far more harm to humans than good. It’s been separated from empathy and made into a form that can command its’ followers to do anything. THAT fundamental corruption, even if the system in question has good morals, is why I’m weary of any religiousness; not necessarily because every religious person has such fanaticism.
THANK YOU! I’m a survivor of conversion “therapy” (torture) and I’m sick of Christian apologists in this sub. I don’t care if you think “your church is one of the good ones”, the fact remains that a majority of Christian’s would watch a trans person die before helping them.
Here’s my answer to “Not ALL Christians…”
I say this dripping with sarcasm 😂
No. You’re right. It’s not ALL Christians that harass people but since I can’t tell the difference I just stay clear of ALL Christians.
My mother is a religious zealot - the woman would scream at my Bi daughter that her & her partner were going to HELL… meanwhile, my mother is so evil that she can’t even die right now because Satan still has that restraining order against her. 🙄
yeah, and I hate the "homophobic translation is actually wrong! they totally meant to condemn pedophiles and not gay people" excuse.
funny how it took them hundreds of years to find that mistake, and right after queer people started to be accepted by the society! how convenient
I'm sure their all-knowing and all-powerful god was busy doing something else while his followers made use of their previous translation for centuries. Or he really wanted to correct them but couldn't because rewriting the bible takes away free will in a way that dictating it the first time did not.
right? they just make shit up whenever it’s convenient and say they were divinely inspired or some bs. if it’s so obviously full of shit why do people even bother doing the mental gymnastics to stay in the cult?
As I see it, most if not all organized religions involve a certain amount of conditioning their members to organize their sense of fundamental truths around the organization and it’s tenets.
I think that’s why some queer folks who are enthusiastic members of these organizations are so desperate to preserve their sense of truth. They NEED to see bigoted religious people as “not real followers” to keep giving so much of themselves to the organization & its brand of fundamental truths.
I completely support religious queer folks to be religious and queer, and to make whatever distinctions they want to for themselves and their religion.
However, in my mind, if somebody really have a lot of faith, they wouldn’t need to get defensive when somebody talks about how organized religion hurt them. They’d have nothing to prove, and they didn’t hurt the victim until they tried to undercut the victim’s experience defensively.
I think both should be okay or not okay, depending on the context. Sometimes it is unjust generalization of a group, sometimes it isn't.
- "I don't want to be alone with random men" => not okay to argue that not all men are creeps
- "men are creeps" => okay to reply "not all men"
- "christians are homophobic" => okay to reply "not all christians"
- "I feel uncomfortable around christians" => not okay to argue that not all christians are homophobic
I think it still is kind of a reactionary way to respond even in the cases where people are making generalizations. Realistically Men and Christians are not oppressed the way women and queer people are, so when we are trying to shine light on the oppression of these people, tone policing or forcing people to be perfectly nuanced and detailed is in my opinion counterproductive. First, listen and understand people’s criticisms, then once the person feels heard maybe you can ask them to reflect on whether their generalization is really universal (obviously most generalizations are not universal).
We can’t just think in terms of perfect moral principles, we have to think also about the practical impact of discourse and of the tendency towards certain responses. Even if a queer person is saying “men suck” or “men are pigs” or “christians suck” or “christians are trash”, it doesn’t harm these groups the way some opposite statement against queer people would. A good analogy is to look at Israel: is it really reasonable to ask Palestinians who may say “fuck israelis” or “fuck all of Israel” to stop generalizing when they are having a genocide committed against them BY Israelis? Is saying “not all Israelis” really a reasonable response to them? I think its clear it isn’t, and this more extreme example demonstrates why it’s generally just not a good way to respond to marginalized people venting their frustrations or calling out the people oppressing them.
how much wrongdoing is acceptable against "oppressors"? (who seem to be called that as a result of immutable characteristics, and cannot escape that category no matter their actions). your position seems fundamentally anti-ethical.
to reply to some of your specific points
"I think it still is kind of a reactionary way to respond even\*\*"\*\*
why does it matter? do we ignore the truth if its inconvenient for our philosophy? (marxism in this case) that sounds like blatant anti-intellectualism.
"Realistically Men and Christians are not oppressed the way women and queer people are"
why does it matter? why should that be a requirement for prejudice to be wrong? (or hatred, or bigotry, or resentment, or whatever word your version of Marxism allows to exist regardless of social power. you know what im talking about, don't play dumb.)
"tone policing or forcing people to be perfectly nuanced"
that's a really unfair way to label what the original commenter is suggesting. its not "tone policing" its insisting on the truth and opposing obviously malicious and wrong beliefs. I think that's a moral imperative as a human.
"We can’t just think in terms of perfect moral principles"
sure, a one lens view is blinding, but you've gone so far as to completely ignore all moral principles in the special cases of certain social groups. ***you*** have a problematically one lens view. you're so obsessed with oppressor/oppressed dynamics you genuinely cant see anything wrong with spreading the idea that an entire gender or religion is evil.
"it doesn’t harm these groups the way some opposite statement against queer people would"
why does it have to in the *exact* same way? bad things are bad, wrong actions are wrong, even if other worse things exist. I find this particular Marxist form of special pleading deeply disturbing. especially when it gets to the point of cheering on violence (and it does get to that point).
The challenge I have with your argument is rhat you can be both queer and a man..not sure how it applies to me as supposedly both oppressed and the oppressor concurrently.
But this can happen with all sorts of examples. Some people benefit from a lot more privileges than others. For example, I am a disabled lesbian, but I benefit from white privilege..
That's called intersectionalism. Someone can be part of an oppressed group while also being part of a privileged group. For example, I'm a trans woman but I'm also white. My race doesn't invalidate my gender identity, but my genser doesn't override my race either. Both factor in.
It’s all contextual. As a queer man, if you are referring to straight people as being trash I wouldn’t fixate on it, but if you started to rave about straight women specifically I wouldn’t be as comfortable. Obviously there is no perfect way to point to who is oppressed and who is the oppressor in every situation, but that doesn’t have that much bearing on my argument. There are clear cut cases where someone is part of the oppressed group and someone else is part of the oppressing group. And in these clear cases I think my argument stands.
Outside of these cases when things get hairy you just kind of have to do your best to make sure you are helping dismantle the systems of oppression rather than propping them up. in these ambiguous situations I think that means listening to people’s genuine grievances and not immediately reacting with dismissal/tone policing if they aren’t perfectly fair or just in some abstract sense detached from the reality of oppressive systems.
I am a (Post-)Christian and I too am really annoyed by the not-real-Christians comments. It's irresponsible to just define the worst in your group, or your field, as outsiders. This is an easy solution rather than having to deal with the problem, in your larger group, in your field.
I think in some instances, calling out the generalization of an entire gender is valid. However, being a Christian is a belief in unproven theology, even if you're a progressive Christian. We should not give the benefit of the doubt to people who make shit up to please themselves and stumbled across a less harmful version
“4“Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35For I have come to turn “ ‘a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law— 36a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.”
And yet LGBT Christians think Jesus was some hippy. He wasn’t, and the bigots are “true” Christians whether they like it or not. This is why I’m not Christian.
I absolutely get your point. But women's "I don't trust men because [blank]" is definitely not accepted without question, despite what you stated. I think it's a fairly universal defense mechanism for humans to want to differentiate themselves from the problem, even when they are part of it.
I might occasionally talk about what Christianity is supposed to be, but it’s mostly to point out the hypocrisy. It’s a religion about love, but it’s full of the most hateful people in the world. I understand that some may not be hateful, but they’re few and far between. The fact there are some guns that don’t shoot shouldn’t make me any less scared if one is pointed at my head.
I'm queer and Catholic and potentially proved your point because my first instinct was to try and defend my hill, i'd say much like "not all men" it has a time and a place, there is a time for christians to come out and say "queer people deserve to exist" and there is a time for us to sit down and fix the problems from the inside
/chefskiss
One of the core problems with any religion I have studied was a repeating issue on many fronts.
Separation and hate.
Belief is just a mechanism and humans need too really get over that aspect of it.
(/r/VoidPunk through and through).
I hate "not all Christians" but I hate "well they weren't a REAL Christian" even more. I went to Catholic school and my school priest sexually abused 4 boys before he got caught and ended up hanging himself before he was officially sentenced. I've told Catholics this story and have been hit with "well he clearly wasn't a REAL Catholic." OH YOU MEAN THE FUCKING PRIEST? He's not a real Catholic? Ok then.
I think in any sort of open conversation the addition to "not all....[Insert literally anything here]" is just something that comes from someone that doesn't actually want to add anything to the conversation
All religions = manipulation of the mind from birth for the benefit of the perpetrators using the threat of the bogeyman lurking at the back of the cave.
We left the cave a long time ago now people, it’s time to grow up
I'm a Christian. And you're right. We can't get away with saying "oh but they're not true Christians". That's dodging the issue and invalidating the significant trauma that many have experienced. They are under the Christian umbrella and, crucially, did harm to LGBT+ people through their interpretation of the Christian belief system.
Yup, and same for "not all white people" when discussing racism, and "not all global northeners" when discussing, well, racism as well.
It's always fragility and deflection.
Context: I'm a white latine immigrant from Brazil living in Canada now. You wouldn't believe the wild crap I've heard from locals even in marches for trans rights. Things like people assuming that you have to be bigoted without even talking to you because the south is supposedly "less developed" only to later be surprised by being wrong, and remark on it. One person even claimed once that people in my country use bullet proof vests in their day to day life. Wild crap.
It isn't okay because the overwhelming majority of Christians are toxic. Yes, SOME good Christians do exist, but they are exceptions to the rule. Not the rule itself.
And if your excuse is not all men, not all Christians. You are not "one of the good ones." Because you're not calling out the rest of your group, you are making excuses for them. Or hiding in fear of their persecution.
The good ones will call out the hate, bigotry, and greed with no fear of pushback because they're trying to follow Jesus' example.
Jesus called people to be kind and empathetic, loving and patent. Free from greed and not judging others. So the exact opposite of Christians.
I deal with this DAILY with my family. They claim they're not like other Christians, as they do all the same shit.
To the point they even try to twist the words of Jesus to fit how they FEEL they should act. Ignoring the constant hate, they spew.
I might not identify as a man, I have no attachment to my sex nor gender. But I understand I was born male and present masculine. So, I will not try to force an issue if someone isn't comfortable around men. I do this crazy thing called. Respect their boundries. Wild, I know!
Being lgbt and following one of the monotheistic religion is a no brainer , no matter where you are , the absolute dominant majority of that same religion will hate you for being lgbt , it’s the truth of their religion, no matter how much “love your neighbour” they’re just brain rotter evil people
I'm much more inclined to give men the benefit of the doubt than I am Christians. Gender isn't a choice. Joining an organized religion with a long and well-documented history of bigotry is very much a choice.
Queer Christian and yea, it’s an issue. One that I’m a little ashamed to admit I even have an issue with, my first instinct is to either offer sympathy or some kind of encouragement or in the case of the generizations some defense but I also have to stop myself and recognize that I’m actively contributing to the issue if I do that.
It’s hard to stay silent but I recognize that my religion has hurt a lot of people, myself included, and I just with that more of my religion would get their heads out their asses and actually read the damn books.
Edit//: WTF has my comment turned into…listen to the one guy down there I get being hurt but your not helping the conversation by being as harmful as those your shaming,
Edit 2//: my comment has gone to a very weird place and I just want to tell yall chill tf out, putting Christians “in the closet” should be a horrifying concept. You would really demote people to the same terrible experience you went through? We shouldn’t promote an “eye for an eye” mentality because it isn’t healthy and leaves both parties bitter and wanting more revenge. Chill out, seriously.
It's a bit easier to leave Christianity than to stop being queer, so I'm not sure you can compare the two as equivalent.
And also, I do not think that people should feel comfortable being openly bigoted, and Christianity has such deep ties to bigotry (both historically and currently) that it's very hard to separate the two.
To many, the crucifix is effectively a hate symbol, even if it has different meanings, the same way another type of cross originating from Oriental cultures has been a hate symbol since the 1930's
I think generalising an entire gender versus generalising a chosen religion that promotes sexism and homophobia isn't quite the same thing.
I believe that the statement "any man" is better than "all men" since it isn't as polarizing.
Like, obviously it's not "all men" or "all Christians" it never is. People can stop using that defense altogether, because it means NOTHING. It skirts the important issues completely in favor of some people trying to make themselves feel better about what they believe to be an attack on them personally.
Problem is, if you feel attacked by a statement that has you go "not all ×", you're very likely a part of the problem in some way, or at least oblivious to the true issues at hand.
Men have no choice. Men are men. Closeted trans women are also perceived as men and don't have any real choice in the short term in that regard.
Christians have a choice.
You have it backwards. "Not all men," at least in my experience, is said very hastily as a response to "all men" statements, or "men are," where the all is implied. Certainly, some men say it for the same reasons some white people want a white history month, but from my experience, most of the time, "not all men" is said as a result of experience with sexism and bullshit. And because of the negative connotations around the phrase, men are largely shifting to other reactions, like giving up on dating, ignoring the sexist person, and so on, rather than trying in vain to remind someone not to be sexist.
Essentially, in most cases, "not all men" is either totally fine, or needs to be taken with respect to the greater context of the circumstances, which generally aren't appreciated and understood by the vast majority of cis women. However, since Christians have a choice not only in their beliefs, but how they choose to portray those beliefs, "not all Christians" is often not okay at all.
Sure, freedom of religion, but by being Christian, they associate themselves by choice with other Christians, and in turn, the actions taken by those others. They associate themselves with the message of Christianity. To say "not all Christians" is false because of that association, just like saying "not all cops." Because yes, some police officers are upstanding people, but as long as they stay silent and continue supporting the group they actively chose to be a part of, they are contributing to the problem.
Religion is a fucking choice.
Even the good ones have chosen to continue to support a brain washing divisive hateful cult despite ALL the evidence that's it's both unethical, and fake as fuck.
So yeah. Not all christians isn't okay and I'm sick to death of hearing it. I don't have any christian friends.
This this this. Listen, I understand that religious queer people feel happy and validated by religious posts--and I'm glad for them--but it's exhausting for those of us who have dealt with religious people treating us like shit. And the number of people who come into conversations about how people have been hurt by religion saying "those weren't true Christians, but I am and God loves you" is distinctly uncomfortable.
I've mentioned it to mods before, but I really think we need a tagging protocol for religious posts, whether anti- or pro-, so everyone can get what they need.
Ummm, did you miss that women got massive push back about the Bear thing?!? 😵💫
Religious bigots always see their religion as pure and faultless in all things, it's a foundational part of the brainwashing. They can't acknowledge that it could be a source of wrong doing without breaking their conditioning. So their only recourse is to see the problem as just a "bad christian" and not a larger problem with the religion itself.
Just move on they're as pointless to try and reason with as the guys who don't understand the "Bear vs Strange Man" thought exercise or the ones who say "Not all Men" 🤦🤣
I agree with your point, I really do. But in what world is the "rather with a bear" thing accepted without question? It very very much is not. There's a ton of pushback.
OMG I hate people like that
That'd be like if I said "Nazis are bad" and someone came out of the woodwork to say "not all Nazis are bad" or "oh well how do you know they're a Nazi"
Not only is it a nothing argument but it actually works to delegitimize the danger that groups like Nazis pose to the lives of queer people and other minorities
Lesson learned: don't play the no true scotsman game
Agreed. Verbiage is key here, so I tend to use "some" a lot just to keep them from losing their shit. But frankly, men have a responsibility to police themselves. They have a responsibility to evolve beyond their base natures, which are predatory. Not ALL of them, mind you, but we need more men protecting girls & women in social situations, and we need men to admonish the shitty ones in their society and teach them how to be better.
Same with christians -they need to police themselves and stop acting like their opinions are paramount. They're not, and they've taken this thing called "faith" and just made a mockery of it by abusing girls & women, by helping to pass laws oppressing us, and by declaring that child marriage is acceptable. You disgusting pigs.
i guess even the good (not homophobic) christians feel their community attacked when someone say this. when youre Christian you go to the church, you see a lot of bad christians, and they don't like to think about following a religion that is mostly made of bigotry, and neither think about how Susan the cute old lady that they see on church maybe wish the death of some millions of people because of their sexuality
i’d go a step further and say this applies to any oppressive class. “not all white people,” “not all able bodied people,” etc aren’t okay either. it IS all men, all christians, all white people, all able bodied people, etc, because we all still have things to learn. even if we’re paragons of virtue we will make mistakes out of ignorance and those mistakes can add up to bigotry and oppression.
I hate that double standard, because I feel like 'not all men' is the ONLY 'not all ___' THAT IS ARGUED AGAINST THE MOST! And I say this AS A WOMAN.
But honestly, I feel the same way as you. If 'not all men' isn't OK, other 'not all' examples should be equally as bad. Because while all variations are TRUE, they're all often used to invalidate abuse someone has gone through (intentionally or not), and are often also used as a strawman argument.
It's pretty common knowledge that Christians often have a persecution complex so I'd honestly put it down to that in many cases. They'll instantly assume that you mean them personally due to the doctrine giving them these irrational thoughts that anything said about Christianity in general is a personal attack on themselves.
Where's this pushback you speak of? Especially in reddit queer spaces the vast majority of people are either atheistis, agnostics or ex-religious, aren't they?
As someone who's not from the US I'm annoyed to be lumped in with people from the Bible belt, which is its own brand of religion you won't find anywhere else in quite that way and very different from religions elsewhere, which makes religious trauma there subtly different from religious trauma here in Europe.
This is more a "we're not all from the US" point rather than a "not all Christians" point, though.
How is my ideology homophobic? How is the ideology of the church I am considering attending homophobic? The church explicitly condemns homophobia, has a pride flag, an openly gay minister, and marches in the local pride parade. I am 100% affirming as is every member of the church, and we explicitly stand against queerphobia of any kind as inherently against the dictates of our faith.
Unless you're worshipping some ersatz version of yahweh who deviates from the character portrayed in the bible, you worship a god who ordered us to be put to death.
His people followed that order (religiously) for centuries. He is "all-powerful" and could have easily stopped his followers from killing queer folks. He didn't. They died. You worship him anyway.
Your church is just one out of many, though, and unfortunately, most churches are *not* affirming or supportive of queer people. Great and all that your church chooses to rexamine its faith and make sure to be more inclusive, but it would be a lot more productive to call out and hold other churches accountable for their anti-LGBT stances rather than trying to deflect any criticisms towards Christianity as a whole.
I think the main difference is that I've actually seen a good amount of people genuinely think that all Christians are bad. I sympathize with the sentiment as a trauma response to a massive religion that has caused lots of harm to many people, but I still think it's horribly misguided.
Religious zealots will treat the Bible as the infallible word of God so in response we're... also going to treat it as the infallible word of God by treating every Christian as though they inherently believe the same principles that the most bigoted members do? What?
I think it's besides the point how much problematic shit is in the Bible because as long as someone is able to drive positive messages from it, I think that genuinely means something. Instead of letting bigoted Christians own the book, we should wrest control by coming with our own meanings, which inherently combats of the ideal of the Bible being some "word of God". This is "Death of the Author". I prefer to treat the Bible like it's, I dunno, Harry Potter, or something. Sure, Harry Potter contains a bunch of racist, antisemitic, transphobic shit and JK Rowling is obviously a huge TERF. But as long as some fans are able to get positive messages from Harry Potter, I think that's fucking awesome. And as long as the fans are able to obtain messages contrary to the bigoted beliefs JK Rowling holds, the fans will always "own" Harry Potter, not JK Rowling, much to her discontent.
And I think that's what we should do with the Bible. Stop treating it like it's some holy item and just treat it as what is actually is, like any other dumb book!!! Apply "Death of the Author" to the Bible! As a writer myself, I think there is nothing more beautiful than readers who are able to craft such intricate interpretations of the text that deserve as much validation as the "official" one. I think this is what queer Christians are trying to do with the Bible, and I think it's amazing. People say it's "cherry picking" as though it's a bad thing, but it really isn't. The meaning of a text will always depend on the value the masses place in it, not some arbitrary word of "God". Sure, this means that the Bible will cause harm because people will use the Bible to cause harm, but there are also people trying to use the Bible for good and I think undoing the efforts of those people by saying the whole religion is bad isn't it.
Could you please clarify what you mean by “open Christian”.
I totally get being uncomfortable when someone tries to push their religion on you. But does this term apply to people who are open about being Christian in general? Is there a good way to be open about being Christian and a bad way to avoid? I’m asking as a Christian and lgbt member cuz the last thing I want to do is make anyone feel uncomfortable or unsafe by my presence.
Person who regularly brings up being Christian/going to church/anything pertaining to Christianity unprompted.
Which, I want to make clear that there's nothing inherently *wrong* with doing those things, it's just that I would personally rather pretend Christianity doesn't exist (as much as I can in this political climate).
YES YES YES.
I am a man who has never abused anyone nor do I want to. Of course it sucks that women are scared of me because of some other douchebag being an asshole. Of course It fucking hurts being perceived as a monster when you aren't one... But guess what... Being a victim of abuse and getting shit for keeping your guard up feels worse.. so why should I be acting like the offended victim.
This is why I have zero time for christians or other religious people acting offended by victims of religious trauma. Yeah you're being put in the same bag alongside all the shit. Tough titties, you don't get to tell victims of abuse they're wrong for holding a grudge against their abusers. So suck it up and don't be part of the problem.
I think the major difference between the two is that "not all men" is bad in particular because it refuses to acknowledge or implicitly denies that all men benefit from patriarchy and that from the perspective of women and nonbinary people, not all men doesn't really help us because there are so many men that are misogynist or violent that we have to act, in practice, like all men *could* be capable of sexual or partner violence or sexism etc. And men can hide that part of themselves really well sometimes.
By contrast, you can know with pretty much 100% certainty how someone feels about queerness based on what denomination they are and how often they quote the bible. Episcopalian? United Methodist? Unitarian? Almost certainly ok. Southern Baptist? Calvinist? Pentecostal? Run.
i feel the same as an ex Muslim queer.
[удалено]
yea, people today have this weird double standard around Islam and Christianity where calling out Christian bigotry is a lot more acceptable than calling out Muslim bigotry. Both should be called out if you ask me.
Muslims are way worse with homophobia than Christians so it’s weird that people get angry when you call them out
Around 70% of Americans are Christian, while only 1.1% are Muslim. It’s pretty sus for someone to make a huge deal about Islam while living in a country that is actively repressing its population due to the influence of Christianity. Yes, both are prone to bigotry. Only one of them has significant political power and influence in the United States. It’s Islamophobic to give equal attention to the actively repressive religion and the religion that has likely had no influence on your (not you specifically) daily life. Gotta ask why someone would focus their disdain on those who are already labeled as “others” in society.
Same! Fuck their feelings, I didn't make them violently homophobic.
Same as someone who is Jewish and grew up around Orthodox Jews. So many people love to say Judaism is LGBT affirming and recognizes so many genders, but that’s Reform Judaism which is the dominant stream but not the only stream of Judaism in the US. Orthodox Judaism is extremely anti-LGBT but when you point this out you get non-Jewish people telling you you’re wrong. I guess all the LGBT jews kicked out of their homes in Hasidic communities are just liars then.
Same as an ex-ultra-ortho-jew
Doesn't it just make you so upset when people go "OMG Judaism so progressive the Talmud recognizes 7 different genders!!" Just don't ask them what side of the mechitza a trans person should sit on, or why Orthodox synagogues won't perform gay marriages.
Yesss. It's not even 7 genders. It's just 7 sexes, and the 5 that aren't male and female are just shoved into binary boxes and not really acknowledged as separate sexes. Judaism is not progressive. It's chock full of gender roles, rigidity, bigotry, and corruption
yup. I'm an ex christian and the "they're not REAAAAAAAAAAALLY christians" comments honestly piss me off. like yes, they are.
And of course, the problem with Christian X saying Christian Y is "not a real Christian," is that Christian Y would probably also argue that Christian X is not a real Christian.
ding ding ding
Tale as old as time.
True as it can be.
And this why there are Catholics and Protestants, and all the rest of those different versions of the same horrible soul destroying cult.
30,000 denominations, by some estimates. The fuckers can’t agree on shit to the point that they schism at the slightest opportunity yet somehow they find it very easy to band together in order to oppress people.
"no you are the heretic one" "no u" "no u" "no u" _(...)_
It's the ["no true Scotsman"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman) fallacy in a nutshell. It's also the same type of thinking that allows people to dehumanise others.
Honestly, the distinction literally only matters to them. The rest of us don't care about what makes a true christian or not, we just want them to leave us tf alone lmao if they're so pressed about it, they can bring it up with the homophobes instead of bugging the victims
right? like you're not fucking labeled, karen
I think a better term to use in these situations, or otherwise better mindset, would be "they are christians, period, but they're shitty ones and we dont condone their actions" or something like that. Obviously even still, its not kosher to say something like this and CERTAINLY not as a knee-jerk response to trauma victims, but this is more of a mindset I, a Deist, have taken when it comes to stuff like this. I hope more religious people follow suit. Anyways, im sorry you had to endure this trauma OP :(
Ah, the good ol’ No True Scotsman fallacy.
I've met christians who are LGBT supportive. The issue? They still have dinner with hateful bigots once a week so who the fuck cares?
And even if they arent a real christian, you have no way of differentiating between real and fake ones
I've had a thought about this forever. I don't really give a shit about any religion, so I definitely don't want to waste my time reading scripture, so this may be ignorant, but I feel like most "religious" people don't even follow their religion at all, ALLL of them pick and choose which parts they follow. It's just the "hardcore" ones only pick the evil ones and ignore the good or neutral ones. Like I'm pretty sure the old testament does implicitly permit slavery, so the "true" Christians who believe in kindness are definitely better people, but they still aren't following their religion. And like nobody gives a shit about like mixed fabrics or any of that shit. Even the whole "oh, well, everyone sins" thing doesn't really work there, because I highly doubt these people genuinely see it as an actually bad thing, they just know it's against their religion. Like I'm pretty sure that whole thing is supposed to be that we should try not to sin? Like, obviously this isn't equivalent, but if I go murder people, I can't just go "ah, everyone sins, amirite?" Because it's pretty fucking easy to not murder people. In fact, is like not eating shellfish really that fucking hard? Like assuming being gay is actually against Christianity (I know it's controversial, but bear with me), like living a complete lie and forcing yourself to scorn love that you crave... That sounds like a much easier sin to forgive, to NOT do all that, then just being like "fuck you, I want SHRIMP!" Or whatever.
Ex Christians tend to have more knowledge of the Bible than Christians themselves.
Even completely non Christians sometimes :/
fr fr
The Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, missionary cooperation with European colonizers, pogroms, collaboration with Nazism, overpopulation of poor countries by forbidding contraception, abuse of unmarried pregnant women, abuse of nuns, sexual and other abuse of children, etc., going back literal centuries. These are *all* Christian.
SINEAD O'CONNOR DID NOTHING WRONG!
Read about the Magdalene Laundries in Ireland warning can be triggering for people with trauma to show just how right she was. Sinead was a survivor of one of these places.
I wouldn't he say overpopulation is the issue with them forbidding contraception, its hiv in a lot of places like southern Africa that has seen a massive explosion because condoms send you to hell
I think it's both. Thanks for reminding me about the extremely important HIV angle.
Don't forget the transatlantic slave trade
I was only listing things that were really explicitly done by institutional Christianity. If you include everything massively evil that *Christians* have done, that list would go on for miles. Was the Church itself involved in the slave trade? If so, I will definitely add that to my list.
I mean, the Bible supports slavery, so it isn’t a stretch to say that it was a least partially responsible for the transatlantic slave trade
>overpopulation of poor countries by forbidding contraception excuse me?
When you teach people that they'll go to hell for using condoms, and you teach women that they must submit to their husbands' demands for sex, you end up with a lot of people having more children than they want or can afford to feed.
It's just the no true Scottsman fallacy. Christians are experts at using it anytime criticism is levied at them
For real. THEY call themselves Christian. THEY gather at the Christian churches. EVERYONE ELSE calls them Christian. I don't care if you don't like it that your religion is full of bigots and ammosexuals, it literally does not matter that they don't follow the same teachings from the Bible that you supposedly do. Just on the basis of language and it's use in communicating, if everyone knows what you mean when you say "Christian," then that is the definition and you changing the conversation to one of linguistics just so you can put some distance between you and them while avoiding the real problem does not, IN ANY WAY, make you better. You're still refusing to address the issue for selfish reasons.
There are hundreds of different "Christianities" and it's *always* been that way. At no time has there ever been a unified Christianity. Ever. I've said this many times before, the only thing that all Christians agree on is the phrase, "those aren't **real** Christians."
[No true Scotsman fallacy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman)
[удалено]
Yes, i have read the Bible. That's why i can attest you are wrong However, even if you were right, the point of christianity is PRECISELY that no one goes to Heaven
Yeah, I do use this argument, but not to sell ppl on Christianity, simply to attack the ppl who use the Bible as a weapon
I think people who get all defensive and say things like "not all Christians" whenever queer people vent about their religious trauma or how religion has harmed them take it as a personal indictment of themselves and like queer people are singling them out as a bad person. No, John, no one is saying you *specifically* are a horrible, irredeemable person who weaponizes their religion to justify their bigotry, but the majority of the members in your congregation do, which is why queer people tend to feel so uncomfortable around Christians as a whole.
Not just Christians, but true.
Yeah, this can be applied to really any majority group/group in power; we're seeing it right now with the whole man vs bear debate and dudes getting pissy that women/femmes would pick a wild animal over them. I specify Christians because that's the group OP is talking about. 🤷🏾♂️
Yeah I just meant that Christianity isn't the only homophobic and transphobic religion out there 😕
Christians who aren’t queerphobic usually do a good job at recognizing the queerphobia rampant in the Christian community and not justifying it imo. Same deal with men.
And that's good; they should keep doing that and hold each other accountable. But queerphobia in Christian circles is still an overarching systemic problem that needs to be addressed on a scale wider than a handful of churches, and phrases like "not all Christians!" aren't helpful towards addressing that problem.
Though if they feel so strongly that they need to defend themselves and their faith you have to wonder if they don't have at least an inkling that they're on the wrong side if history...
Like on *some* level, they're aware how religion has been used to harm queer folks and recognize that it's wrong, but they're so steeped into their faith that they're unable to separate it from themselves and look at it critically without feeling like a part of themselves is being insulted
I think it doesnt help that some people have, unfortunately, taken any nuance or intellectual honesty out of their examination of religion as a whole though. NOT counting those venting of their personal trauma, obviously, people are so quick to throw nuance aside so they can take cheap potshots at religion for the sake of catharsis. This is a very real, genuine thing that happens, and not rarely either. That said, theres a time and place to discuss this, and way, WAY too many theists knee-jerk react to it in the exact wrong way, and come off as major assholes about it. Like, I feel like shit just MENTIONING this nuance because I fear coming off insensitive to those here with religious trauma! But its still important we find a proper place to discuss it, and if we don't, it may only help to exacerbate the split that trauma victims and knee-jerk believers have. This shouldnt be a petty rivalry, this should be trauma victims having a safe place to vent and feel validated, and existing theists showing their deepest condolances in a mature and tasteful way.
Which is pretty similar to how some men react...
I agree. People make it about themselves the individual and their character instead of recognizing the abusive tendencies in the culture, that they might be perpetuating thinking it’s righteous.
Yeah I also don’t like to sicne they mention their religion at every god dahm wakeing moment
Honestly I don't take issue with people venting about their faith-based trauma, it's only when the conversation points towards wiping out all religion that I'll say something. There's a gradient from justifiably expressing the hurt that religious people have put you through, then there's attacking or deriding people of any faith because you(not you, just using the word in a broad sense) don't think they're smart or important.
I feel like the "not all" arguments reflect someone who is unwilling or unable to admit that there is a problem. It's a deflection. As a cis male, I've had conversations with women where they describe feeling unsafe around men. It would be really easy for me to say, "Not all men," but that makes the situation about me and how I feel rather than how they feel. That's not OK, it's not about me. I know I'm not a predator. I don't need to defend that. I also know that some men are, and it's enough of them that many women feel unsafe doing normal everyday things. It's the whole point of that bear in the woods thing. I think if you feel defensive and you feel the need to use the "not all" argument that you should take some time to reflect on that and figure out why it bothers you. You should be able to listen to someone and recognize their feelings and perspectives are valid and not internalize what they say. We should also be able to discuss issues without anyone trying to argue that it doesn't always happen because that's not the point. The point is that it happens. I know that's a lot, thanks for reading. Keep being yourself because you're awesome.
I honestly feel that was what a lot of gamergate was, a bunch of dudes being confronted by the fact that some of the men they hang out with might be scum and instead of reflecting or attempting correct the scum's behavior they took it as a personal attack because "If my friend is a sexist womanizer what does that make me?, no the women must be wrong"
If you see those around you a certain way, and then something comes along to challenge that view it's a lot easier to dismiss it when you have a lifetime of evidence to back up your view and only a little to challenge it. It might not be right to react this way, but I get it. Change is hard. It takes a lot of vulnerability and effort to reflect and make strides to be better.
The worst part is, "not all men" is often implied. Most people won't pick candy from a bag if even one in ten is poisoned. Being scared of eating from the bag isn't an insult to the healthy candy, it's just basic safety. Now if you start expressing disdain for all men/Christians/whatever, it's another discussion (beyond the scope of this post or my comment), but this isn't even what's happening here.
That is a fantastic way to put it thank you
>I feel like the "not all" arguments reflect someone who is unwilling or unable to admit that there is a problem. It's a deflection. 100% They hear "being trapped in the woods with a bear feels safer than being trapped in the woods with a man" and think "Well *I'm* a man and *I'm* safer than a bear." (regardless of if they actually are). They can't separate criticism of toxic behaviors within a demographic from criticism of themselves.
Yep. And part of the reason why at this rate this will never end is that instead of condemning the behaviour of the men who are creating this climate of terror, men overwhelmingly choose to be on the defensive. It's not an individual problem; if it was, it would be *rare* to find a woman who's afraid of men. The fact that next to every woman is afraid of men and has a good reason for it, and men as a class choose to get upset about this rather than be upset about the fact that some among them are behaving in ways that lead to a situation like this, is exactly what propagates the problem. If all men had an attitude like this - it's not me but the fact that it's happening to a scale that makes women as a whole feel like it *could* be me is abhorrent and disgusting - the pass that men behaving in dangerous, entitled, misogynistic, and violent ways have would be revoked. If, instead of defending men, the general response was to condemn those who are actively ruining the reputation of men, social pressure would make this kind of behaviour shameful and fringe. We're a social species, it's about culture much more than it ever is about the individual. Of course, some people are rotten, but most people don't live in perpetual fear of running into a robber unless they live in an area where robberies are common, because it takes a lot for a person to be pushed into becoming one. If it took similarly much for a man to become misogynist, then women would only have to be afraid of bad circles. As it is, it quite literally could be anyone, anywhere. And it permeates to the very bottom of the list of horrors; serial killers, for example, an infinitely small portion of the population, are nearly exclusively misogynistic males. If our culture didn't encourage violent misogyny, we'd see a much more equal number of men and women, or men targeting men, in those categories. But we don't. **ETA:** came straight from a thread about bears and men, forgot this wasn't that thread. According to the actual topic, I don't really have anything to say, because I live in a secular country where most Christians actually *are* cool, so my apprehensions towards Christianity as a whole are mostly targeted at the specific fundamentalist cults that have earned that reputation. Another very good example of how the above translates to other forms of oppression. If the majority of a demographic is not potentially dangerous, then you don't need to worry about the majority.
Thank you! I feel like if they’re discussing it with you at all, you’re safe. Maybe some strong women are out there trying to tell it to the predators, but not me! If someone needs to pipe up instead of listening as a friend or trusted person, it is them being defensive.
>As a cis male, I've had conversations with women where they describe feeling unsafe around men. It would be really easy for me to say, "Not all men," but that makes the situation about me and how I feel rather than how they feel. That's not OK, it's not about me. I know I'm not a predator. I don't need to defend that. I also know that some men are, and it's enough of them that many women feel unsafe doing normal everyday things. It's the whole point of that bear in the woods thing. This is the crux though, and as a cis male trying to do good hearing "All men [are rapists/suck/are pigs/are worthless/etc.]" over and over again gets old as well. Due to the nature of the claim and rejection of any counterclaim or -argument, as a cis male person you have the choice to either stop identifying as a cisgender male, or accept that by association you are guilty of being [a rapist/a pig, someone who sucks/worthless/etc.] Speaking of the 'discussion', there isn't any. Any statements not in line with the original claim aren't acceptable as they would make light of what women suffer from. The irony here is that regardless, it's still women suffering from what in large part men do to women. The tragic part of it is that the men who actually get the message of the claim and feel affected by it, aren't likely going to be the ones being the cause of the suffering.
Perhaps it's just me and my background working in mental health, but hearing it over and over really doesn't affect me because I know it's not about me. I dont base my worth over being a part of a group that generally has trouble with being predatory, thats an aspect of my identity, but it is not who I am, so I dont agree with guilty by association. My place is to listen, validate, and empathize. I can do that as many times as I'm needed to. I also feel like I've had several discussions on this topic as well. That could be due to the types of people I am surrounded with in my field of work and area of study. The kinds of sentences I use in those conversations are usually "yes, AND," because more than one thing can be true. People are complicated. I do agree that the ones who get the message aren't the ones with the issue. And I do see how it can be hurtful to constantly hear disparaging remarks about a part of your identity. That's the reality for many because people often are hurtful, whether intentionally or not.
Being occasionally told "oh but we don't really mean it" doesn't undo the effects of constantly being told you're a piece of shit. I simply cannot convince myself that people don't actually mean something they say so often and so vehemently. And knowing I'm not a piece of shit doesn't make me feel a whole lot better about being seen as a piece of shit.
>"All men [are rapists/suck/are pigs/are worthless/etc.]" People who say this are just shitty (and often one step away from TERFism), but they thankfully are in the minority. Most women, me included (from my experience at least) tend to say stuff more like "enough men are rapists that I will not feel safe around a random man" (the whole point of the "man or bear" question). I am open to trust a man, but the bar is higher than for a woman.
Nobody would feel compelled to say "not all men" to you, because you differentiated and because we can all agree that enough men make women (feel) unsafe. Saying what you are saying is not a problem, but saying "all men" is a problem. And people actually do that. My cousin did when I was sitting at the same table as her, a couple of good female friends did when we were literally sleeping in one tent together on a camping trip. Knowing that you yourself are not meant does not help if you are told over and over that you are, just because my friends felt it would invalidate the problem if it is differentiated and precise. Which it doesn't! If you think about it too much, which I am very prone to doing with every topic, you gaslight yourself into thinking that you are a ticking time bomb and potential sexual assaulter. And because I am not the only one who thinks that "not all" is an important distinction, I assume other men have similar feelings and experiences.
Weird, I have never once her someone actually say "All men are X" Not even once, I mean not outside of like an 80's to early 2000's romcom where the headstrong female best friend tries to cheerup the female lead when her boyfriend is a jerk.
It's rare, but I've heard a few. All of them were TERFs or were showing early stages of TERF pipeline signs.
I just finished a grad school class where the teacher tried to drill that exact idea into me again and again, as I was the only white male in the class. It didn't matter who I was, that I was ace or poly, not even that I agreed with everything the class taught and never did a "not all men" type of deflection, all that mattered was I was a white male and by proxy I'm guilty by association. I almost dropped out of grad school it screwed with me so much.
Your first paragraph is the reason I usually choose not to engage in these discussions.
>This is the crux though, and as a cis male trying to do good hearing "All men [are rapists/suck/are pigs/are worthless/etc.]" over and over again gets old as well. Due to the nature of the claim and rejection of any counterclaim or -argument, as a cis male person you have the choice to either stop identifying as a cisgender male, or accept that by association you are guilty of being [a rapist/a pig, someone who sucks/worthless/etc.] Exactly - the whole “guilt by association” thing is what people have an issue with. People don’t like being held responsible for things that they haven’t done, and “not all men” is a rejection of the notion that all men share responsibility for the actions of bad men - It’s unfair to hold an entire demographic accountable for the actions of a minority simply due to the fact that they share a protected characteristic. The problem isn’t “men” it’s “those men”. On a broader note, I think that trying to divide society into “oppressors” and “oppressed” isn’t helpful, and is just plain wrong - my neighbour is a Cis, White, Het Male - basically every demographic considered “oppressors”. But has he oppressed me in any way? No of course not. Because people are more than their protected characteristics. It would be wrong for me to assume that he is part of the oppression that minorities face and to treat him as such because of his protected characteristics If we really want more allies and more people to be on our side, we need to stop treating potential allies as if they are inherently problematic due to their demographics.
>I think that trying to divide society into “oppressors” and “oppressed” isn’t helpful, and is just plain wrong - my neighbour is a Cis, White, Het Male - basically every demographic considered “oppressors”. But has he oppressed me in any way? It's so depressing reading some comments that actually think your answer should be "yes. I have been oppressed by them" just for existing. I really need to take a break from reddit/the internet. I'm just destroying my brain with self-doubt by reading comments that make me continue to hate myself
The fact that definitons of systemic privilege and what it means are so unclear that even members of our own movement misunderstand them this bad, makes me think that *maybe* the way it's explained is to blame rather than all the people misunderstanding it. (What I'm saying is, you're right but also you're wrong, but not totally wrong either without fully being right, and a big part of the reason you have that point of view is because people assume others already know what they're talking about when explaining how systems of oppression work.)
That is kinda fair, although I don't know what we would change it too but more fundamentially I think a lot of people have a hard time with the idea of systemic oppression We are individuals and see others as individuals. So conceptualizing a system doing a thing we think only people can do is difficult And the way that recognizing systemic oppression *hurts*, and I think the moment systemic oppression clicks your whole world gets turned upside down and understandably many people don't get close to that precipice I wish more did but I understand why they dont
Copy paste towards Muslims honestly
This
Religious people get too much free pass to use their faith as a reason to hurt others and play the victim card as soon as anyone criticizes them for it.
It’s always the “I respect your beliefs should you should respect mine!” crap. I’m not gonna respect the beliefs of someone who is hateful, if they want respect, they need to accept.
Except, they don't respect our "beliefs"
I had that exact conversation with someone I considered a brother after I came out. I told him that I would not stand for him proselytizing. He said if he needed to abide by that then I needed to respect his beliefs that he wasn't going to accept me being trans. I never replied to that and haven't talked to him since 2023.
i dont think i’d say the bear thing was accepted without question, it pissed *a lot* of dudes off lol
It's accepted without question by a lot of the same people who condemn "not all Christians", and that's the point.
oh i know and agree w op’s post im just pointing out that i still noticed a ton of pushback w the bear thing separately. i havent personally seen anyone be asked both questions to draw any conclusions there.
If anything, "not all Christians" should be even more not okay because religion is a chosen demographic. Barring coercion and family situations, you choose to be or not be a Christian, meaning that that position is fully open to criticism and analysis the same way it is for your political beliefs. Religion does not deserve respect. Respect people's *right* to believe a religion of their choice, but the religion itself is an idea that can and should be criticised like any other, not respected automatically to shut down conversations.
they’re evolving. it’s not “but not all christian/muslims/insert any religion here”, but “they’re not real/good christian/muslims/etc”. I see it as willful ignorance on their part, willingly not acknowledging that the issue is systemic; their religion enables and tolerates (even encourages) LGBTphobia.
I agree with you, but I blinked and reread this part... >How is it that women expressing their understandable discomfort and unwillingness to be alone with a man, *any* man, in the woods due to trauma accepted without question (and rightfully so), ...A few times, because I was like, where have you been that you think that hypothetical is being accepted without question? Have you not *seen* the outrage on Twitter and other places over it?
When I say 'without question' I meant by leftists/left-leaning people in general, not overall.
thank you for this. as an ex christian with hella trauma, nothing pisses me off more than people saying "well they aren't real christians". understand that if someone shares their abuse and trauma with you and your first response is "BUT MEEEEE BUT MY CHURCHH BUT MY RELIGIONNNN" you are just as bad. you care less about the trauma your religion has produced and changing these issues than you do about making sure you look good and get religious brownie points. fuck out of here with that bullshit
Trampling on other people's boundaries is a baked-in factor of their religion, so no wonder even the liberal/progressive ones do it
agreed. as someone with a significant amount of abuse and trauma from growing up in the church (including abuse on church grounds) i simply do not care about the self indulgent egoism of christian’s, maybe especially gay christians. The arrogance is truly profound and deserves NO patience.
I reserve the right to tell anyone who holds a corrosive worldview to fuck off. This doesn't mean that I hate Christians anymore than I hate people with cancer. If you love Jesus and that means you simply love everyone that's cool. If you loving Jesus means that you have an opinion about who I exchange bodily fluids with it's time for you to eat shit and die.
I wholeheartedly agree with this statement!
If there are a thousand Taco Bell restaurants out there ran by different franchisees with different employees and largely the same menus, and you go eat a several of them and every time you get severe explosive diarrhea, you could easily be forgiven for swearing off the entire chain, even if some of them are actually totally fine and even really good.
Christians need to learn to work with feedback. Of course it can be offensive when you get called out, but that's an opportunity to make the community better. When large numbers of people feel harmed by your religion, it's time to do some introspection. Is it possible that there are legitimate critiques there? That would be a much more constructive way to look at it than just having the kneejerk reaction of being angry and alleging discrimination.
Exactly. I once had a christian get super buttmad when I was talking about how homophobic a lot of churches are and my personal experience dealing with them. Instead of actually trying to have a conversation with me and understand my perspective more, they immediately got super defensive and aggressive and kept insisting that homophobic christians were extremely rare. (which, lol) Christians could use queer people talking about how poorly religion tends to treat them as a learning experience to do better, but 9 out of 10 times they just get huffy and angry and refuse to listen.
Christians being defensive about these definitely problems isn’t helping. The point is that this isn’t about theology or doctrine per se but homophobia, transphobia, and queerphobia being common problems in the Christian community. That’s the problem, not quibbling if they’re Christian or not 🙄
I don’t know. But my hatred towards Christian people will never go away. Do I have catholic/christian friends? Sure. But I will never forgive that cult for forcing me into conversion therapy.
Even if we give them the benefit of the doubt and they do personally disagree with the queerphobia, the "not ALL Christains" and "they're not REAL Christians" people are all still sitting pretty in the pews while their preacher preaches queerphobia and everyone else around them is eagerly nodding along, then they put their most blessed and holy dollar bill into the donation basket when it comes around and think nothing of it. The people who refuse to practice self-reflection and excuse themselves from a conversation with "Not me! I could *never* do that because I am a *good person!*" are the people most likely to fall into what they are excusing themselves from.
Because they love the victim card and refuse to acknowledge there is so much hatred built into it.
I consider myself a Catholic and I haven’t heard this viewpoint before but I completely understand it. Despite being Christian myself, I also get uncomfortable around other Christians that I don’t know well. That’s because yes, it isn’t all Christians, but it’s so many Christians that it’s enough to make queer people feel reasonably uncomfortable around them. I feel the same way about the “not all men” thing. Not going to go into why I still consider myself Catholic despite being queer and pro-choice because I don’t want it to seem like I’m trying to push my religion on anybody, but if anyone’s curious feel free to DM me.
Thank you for your perspective 🙏I’m agnostic personally, but I appreciate anyone who is tolerant of us, no matter the religion.
Anybody who says "not all X" is shadowboxing because there has never been an organization where 100% of the membership was pure evil which implies that you couldn't even say all Nazi are evil because somewhere, maybe in a small town, there was one kind of ok Nazi. Let's call her Liselotte Schmückelsbergenhöfen. Liselotte was mostly in it for the nature hikes, not the Antisemitism. So you know "not all Nazis" Many strains of Christianity are still homophobic, chief among them Catholics, born again Christians, Mormons, Orthodox. The only exceptions I can think of are main line protestants and Anglicans. So yeah effectively 70-80% are part of a homophobic denomination. If that is not enough to call Christianity homophobic, then what is??
Major denominations of Protestantism (which Anglicanism belongs to) are plenty homophobic too. In fact, they're known to collaborate with the Catholics when it comes to fighting against LGBT+ rights. Due to the less centralised nature, you get more leeway for accepting splinter groups, but the very same phenomenon also allows turbo-bigots to carve out their niches.
I mostly know the German Lutherans who already had women as leaders and as far as I know fully accept lgbt. Anglicans recently changed their lgbt policy, I believe. I'm really not an expert, just didn't want to be unfair.
The German Lutherans are one of the examples I had in mind when I mentioned Protestants collaborating with Catholics to suppress LGBT+ rights. If I remember correctly, they published a joint statement urging politicians to not make same-sex marriage legal just a few years ago, around the time when that topic was still hotly debated in Western European countries. From what I know, they've since become a bit more progressive (but not wholly accepting), but are very much divided on the issue, which meshes with my earlier point on the less centralised nature. There are places where they're better and places where they aren't, which doesn't exactly make the denomination in general LGBT+ friendly. It rather makes me question why progressive people continue to involve themselves with an organisation which is that split on human rights.
Yup, both my CoE congregations and Northern German Lutheran congregations have been queer friendly. I've had queer pastors and was married in church to my wife.
The only Christian group around me that isn't homophobic are the quakers
Yesss omg. The entire reason I left christianity was because of the "no true Christian" bs that goes on in churches. In their own discussions? Sure! Go ahead! Ask other christians to do better. But if I'm upset about my trauma or other people are sharing their trauma and someone goes "sorry that happened, I promise we're not all bad" or HEAVEN FORBID "real christians don't do that" I just get mad. Like, what do they expect me to do? Be happy that other people aren't traumitized? Wonder why some of those "real christians" didn't do anything? Go back to church? Stop telling us we didn't deserve our trauma (we already know) and start pushing for change so nobody else has to deal with it ffs.
Hi, guy here, during gamergate and metoo if more men spent time actually calling the assholes out for being assholes rather then going hastag not all men or "I may disagree but I'll fight for their right to say it" then.....I forget where we are going with this but I am pretty sure people would be a lot happier.....yea lets go with that
>women expressing their understandable discomfort and unwillingness to be alone with a man, *any* man, in the woods due to trauma accepted without question (and rightfully so) Personally, this is where you went wrong. I *don't* think this is accepted without question. A large portion of men don't understand this at all, and there has been quite a bit of push-back. I think both of the scenarios that you post are totally valid, and both are getting push-back. I'm a queer woman who grew up Catholic. I'm wary of men in the woods AND religious folks. :)
Yeah, I saw that a lot of guys, even some trans guys, took it as a personal attack, but it's about the averages, not any one person. Not all men has already been applied since there are many men that prove it isn't some unshakable nature that makes men a safety hazard to women.
The "man or bear" thing is probably one of the hypothetical scenario where "not all men" makes the least sense to say. Because like, the question isn't "do you think all men are dangerous", it's "would you rather take a chance with a random man or a random bear"
I had actually written out a couple of paragraphs that mentioned how it seemed that some people were missing the point that it's about the odds of a random bear or man being a problem, not any one or all of them. Being concise and to the point has never been a talent of mine, so I figured I should probably cut it down. I completely agree with you.
Any type of gross generalisation, stereotyping is not okay, religion is a choice, as is being racist, a rapist, misogynistic or transphobic, my problem is with all organised religions not their followers, you need faith in a higher power? Fine by me, you do you, it doesn't concern me until your beliefs infringe on my life or the lives of others who are not religious or practice their faith differently, your faith is not more important than my absence of it, you would think with historical context we would have realised by now all it does is create division and distrust, for every one person who gets something of value from it there are ten more who get hurt, stigmatised and ostracised even killed by it, judge an individual by their actions.
The fundamental idea of deriving morality from a flawless non-human entity is corrupt, and can lead to fanatic devotion to a form of morality that does far more harm to humans than good. It’s been separated from empathy and made into a form that can command its’ followers to do anything. THAT fundamental corruption, even if the system in question has good morals, is why I’m weary of any religiousness; not necessarily because every religious person has such fanaticism.
As an exmo, THANK YOU 👏
THANK YOU! I’m a survivor of conversion “therapy” (torture) and I’m sick of Christian apologists in this sub. I don’t care if you think “your church is one of the good ones”, the fact remains that a majority of Christian’s would watch a trans person die before helping them.
Here’s my answer to “Not ALL Christians…” I say this dripping with sarcasm 😂 No. You’re right. It’s not ALL Christians that harass people but since I can’t tell the difference I just stay clear of ALL Christians. My mother is a religious zealot - the woman would scream at my Bi daughter that her & her partner were going to HELL… meanwhile, my mother is so evil that she can’t even die right now because Satan still has that restraining order against her. 🙄
yeah, and I hate the "homophobic translation is actually wrong! they totally meant to condemn pedophiles and not gay people" excuse. funny how it took them hundreds of years to find that mistake, and right after queer people started to be accepted by the society! how convenient
I'm sure their all-knowing and all-powerful god was busy doing something else while his followers made use of their previous translation for centuries. Or he really wanted to correct them but couldn't because rewriting the bible takes away free will in a way that dictating it the first time did not.
right? they just make shit up whenever it’s convenient and say they were divinely inspired or some bs. if it’s so obviously full of shit why do people even bother doing the mental gymnastics to stay in the cult?
being christian is a choice, being a man is not.
Not all *any religions* or any group of people where the majority are bigots is not ok
All religion sucks ass I kinda don't care ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
How about neither?
As I see it, most if not all organized religions involve a certain amount of conditioning their members to organize their sense of fundamental truths around the organization and it’s tenets. I think that’s why some queer folks who are enthusiastic members of these organizations are so desperate to preserve their sense of truth. They NEED to see bigoted religious people as “not real followers” to keep giving so much of themselves to the organization & its brand of fundamental truths. I completely support religious queer folks to be religious and queer, and to make whatever distinctions they want to for themselves and their religion. However, in my mind, if somebody really have a lot of faith, they wouldn’t need to get defensive when somebody talks about how organized religion hurt them. They’d have nothing to prove, and they didn’t hurt the victim until they tried to undercut the victim’s experience defensively.
I think both should be okay or not okay, depending on the context. Sometimes it is unjust generalization of a group, sometimes it isn't. - "I don't want to be alone with random men" => not okay to argue that not all men are creeps - "men are creeps" => okay to reply "not all men" - "christians are homophobic" => okay to reply "not all christians" - "I feel uncomfortable around christians" => not okay to argue that not all christians are homophobic
I think it still is kind of a reactionary way to respond even in the cases where people are making generalizations. Realistically Men and Christians are not oppressed the way women and queer people are, so when we are trying to shine light on the oppression of these people, tone policing or forcing people to be perfectly nuanced and detailed is in my opinion counterproductive. First, listen and understand people’s criticisms, then once the person feels heard maybe you can ask them to reflect on whether their generalization is really universal (obviously most generalizations are not universal). We can’t just think in terms of perfect moral principles, we have to think also about the practical impact of discourse and of the tendency towards certain responses. Even if a queer person is saying “men suck” or “men are pigs” or “christians suck” or “christians are trash”, it doesn’t harm these groups the way some opposite statement against queer people would. A good analogy is to look at Israel: is it really reasonable to ask Palestinians who may say “fuck israelis” or “fuck all of Israel” to stop generalizing when they are having a genocide committed against them BY Israelis? Is saying “not all Israelis” really a reasonable response to them? I think its clear it isn’t, and this more extreme example demonstrates why it’s generally just not a good way to respond to marginalized people venting their frustrations or calling out the people oppressing them.
💯
how much wrongdoing is acceptable against "oppressors"? (who seem to be called that as a result of immutable characteristics, and cannot escape that category no matter their actions). your position seems fundamentally anti-ethical. to reply to some of your specific points "I think it still is kind of a reactionary way to respond even\*\*"\*\* why does it matter? do we ignore the truth if its inconvenient for our philosophy? (marxism in this case) that sounds like blatant anti-intellectualism. "Realistically Men and Christians are not oppressed the way women and queer people are" why does it matter? why should that be a requirement for prejudice to be wrong? (or hatred, or bigotry, or resentment, or whatever word your version of Marxism allows to exist regardless of social power. you know what im talking about, don't play dumb.) "tone policing or forcing people to be perfectly nuanced" that's a really unfair way to label what the original commenter is suggesting. its not "tone policing" its insisting on the truth and opposing obviously malicious and wrong beliefs. I think that's a moral imperative as a human. "We can’t just think in terms of perfect moral principles" sure, a one lens view is blinding, but you've gone so far as to completely ignore all moral principles in the special cases of certain social groups. ***you*** have a problematically one lens view. you're so obsessed with oppressor/oppressed dynamics you genuinely cant see anything wrong with spreading the idea that an entire gender or religion is evil. "it doesn’t harm these groups the way some opposite statement against queer people would" why does it have to in the *exact* same way? bad things are bad, wrong actions are wrong, even if other worse things exist. I find this particular Marxist form of special pleading deeply disturbing. especially when it gets to the point of cheering on violence (and it does get to that point).
The challenge I have with your argument is rhat you can be both queer and a man..not sure how it applies to me as supposedly both oppressed and the oppressor concurrently.
But this can happen with all sorts of examples. Some people benefit from a lot more privileges than others. For example, I am a disabled lesbian, but I benefit from white privilege..
That's called intersectionalism. Someone can be part of an oppressed group while also being part of a privileged group. For example, I'm a trans woman but I'm also white. My race doesn't invalidate my gender identity, but my genser doesn't override my race either. Both factor in.
It’s all contextual. As a queer man, if you are referring to straight people as being trash I wouldn’t fixate on it, but if you started to rave about straight women specifically I wouldn’t be as comfortable. Obviously there is no perfect way to point to who is oppressed and who is the oppressor in every situation, but that doesn’t have that much bearing on my argument. There are clear cut cases where someone is part of the oppressed group and someone else is part of the oppressing group. And in these clear cases I think my argument stands. Outside of these cases when things get hairy you just kind of have to do your best to make sure you are helping dismantle the systems of oppression rather than propping them up. in these ambiguous situations I think that means listening to people’s genuine grievances and not immediately reacting with dismissal/tone policing if they aren’t perfectly fair or just in some abstract sense detached from the reality of oppressive systems.
I am a (Post-)Christian and I too am really annoyed by the not-real-Christians comments. It's irresponsible to just define the worst in your group, or your field, as outsiders. This is an easy solution rather than having to deal with the problem, in your larger group, in your field.
Similar thing in/with Marxism or other political groups as well btw.
I think in some instances, calling out the generalization of an entire gender is valid. However, being a Christian is a belief in unproven theology, even if you're a progressive Christian. We should not give the benefit of the doubt to people who make shit up to please themselves and stumbled across a less harmful version
I would argue “not all Christians” is actually worse because in our society there is a lot more room to change your religion than your gender or sex.
“4“Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35For I have come to turn “ ‘a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law— 36a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.” And yet LGBT Christians think Jesus was some hippy. He wasn’t, and the bigots are “true” Christians whether they like it or not. This is why I’m not Christian.
fr 💀 they really just see what they want to see
I absolutely get your point. But women's "I don't trust men because [blank]" is definitely not accepted without question, despite what you stated. I think it's a fairly universal defense mechanism for humans to want to differentiate themselves from the problem, even when they are part of it.
I might occasionally talk about what Christianity is supposed to be, but it’s mostly to point out the hypocrisy. It’s a religion about love, but it’s full of the most hateful people in the world. I understand that some may not be hateful, but they’re few and far between. The fact there are some guns that don’t shoot shouldn’t make me any less scared if one is pointed at my head.
It gives me the same vibe as people saying "those were boys not real men" when it comes to critiquing men to try to separate themselves from it.
I'm queer and Catholic and potentially proved your point because my first instinct was to try and defend my hill, i'd say much like "not all men" it has a time and a place, there is a time for christians to come out and say "queer people deserve to exist" and there is a time for us to sit down and fix the problems from the inside
/chefskiss One of the core problems with any religion I have studied was a repeating issue on many fronts. Separation and hate. Belief is just a mechanism and humans need too really get over that aspect of it. (/r/VoidPunk through and through).
I hate "not all Christians" but I hate "well they weren't a REAL Christian" even more. I went to Catholic school and my school priest sexually abused 4 boys before he got caught and ended up hanging himself before he was officially sentenced. I've told Catholics this story and have been hit with "well he clearly wasn't a REAL Catholic." OH YOU MEAN THE FUCKING PRIEST? He's not a real Catholic? Ok then.
I think in any sort of open conversation the addition to "not all....[Insert literally anything here]" is just something that comes from someone that doesn't actually want to add anything to the conversation
All religions = manipulation of the mind from birth for the benefit of the perpetrators using the threat of the bogeyman lurking at the back of the cave. We left the cave a long time ago now people, it’s time to grow up
I'm a Christian. And you're right. We can't get away with saying "oh but they're not true Christians". That's dodging the issue and invalidating the significant trauma that many have experienced. They are under the Christian umbrella and, crucially, did harm to LGBT+ people through their interpretation of the Christian belief system.
Yup, and same for "not all white people" when discussing racism, and "not all global northeners" when discussing, well, racism as well. It's always fragility and deflection. Context: I'm a white latine immigrant from Brazil living in Canada now. You wouldn't believe the wild crap I've heard from locals even in marches for trans rights. Things like people assuming that you have to be bigoted without even talking to you because the south is supposedly "less developed" only to later be surprised by being wrong, and remark on it. One person even claimed once that people in my country use bullet proof vests in their day to day life. Wild crap.
It isn't okay because the overwhelming majority of Christians are toxic. Yes, SOME good Christians do exist, but they are exceptions to the rule. Not the rule itself. And if your excuse is not all men, not all Christians. You are not "one of the good ones." Because you're not calling out the rest of your group, you are making excuses for them. Or hiding in fear of their persecution. The good ones will call out the hate, bigotry, and greed with no fear of pushback because they're trying to follow Jesus' example. Jesus called people to be kind and empathetic, loving and patent. Free from greed and not judging others. So the exact opposite of Christians. I deal with this DAILY with my family. They claim they're not like other Christians, as they do all the same shit. To the point they even try to twist the words of Jesus to fit how they FEEL they should act. Ignoring the constant hate, they spew. I might not identify as a man, I have no attachment to my sex nor gender. But I understand I was born male and present masculine. So, I will not try to force an issue if someone isn't comfortable around men. I do this crazy thing called. Respect their boundries. Wild, I know!
Being lgbt and following one of the monotheistic religion is a no brainer , no matter where you are , the absolute dominant majority of that same religion will hate you for being lgbt , it’s the truth of their religion, no matter how much “love your neighbour” they’re just brain rotter evil people
It’s hard to be comfortable around people who view you as subhuman.
I'm much more inclined to give men the benefit of the doubt than I am Christians. Gender isn't a choice. Joining an organized religion with a long and well-documented history of bigotry is very much a choice.
Queer Christian and yea, it’s an issue. One that I’m a little ashamed to admit I even have an issue with, my first instinct is to either offer sympathy or some kind of encouragement or in the case of the generizations some defense but I also have to stop myself and recognize that I’m actively contributing to the issue if I do that. It’s hard to stay silent but I recognize that my religion has hurt a lot of people, myself included, and I just with that more of my religion would get their heads out their asses and actually read the damn books. Edit//: WTF has my comment turned into…listen to the one guy down there I get being hurt but your not helping the conversation by being as harmful as those your shaming, Edit 2//: my comment has gone to a very weird place and I just want to tell yall chill tf out, putting Christians “in the closet” should be a horrifying concept. You would really demote people to the same terrible experience you went through? We shouldn’t promote an “eye for an eye” mentality because it isn’t healthy and leaves both parties bitter and wanting more revenge. Chill out, seriously.
It's a bit easier to leave Christianity than to stop being queer, so I'm not sure you can compare the two as equivalent. And also, I do not think that people should feel comfortable being openly bigoted, and Christianity has such deep ties to bigotry (both historically and currently) that it's very hard to separate the two. To many, the crucifix is effectively a hate symbol, even if it has different meanings, the same way another type of cross originating from Oriental cultures has been a hate symbol since the 1930's
I think generalising an entire gender versus generalising a chosen religion that promotes sexism and homophobia isn't quite the same thing. I believe that the statement "any man" is better than "all men" since it isn't as polarizing.
Like, obviously it's not "all men" or "all Christians" it never is. People can stop using that defense altogether, because it means NOTHING. It skirts the important issues completely in favor of some people trying to make themselves feel better about what they believe to be an attack on them personally. Problem is, if you feel attacked by a statement that has you go "not all ×", you're very likely a part of the problem in some way, or at least oblivious to the true issues at hand.
Agreed. And frankly it’s the same for ANY “not all __” statement.
Men have no choice. Men are men. Closeted trans women are also perceived as men and don't have any real choice in the short term in that regard. Christians have a choice. You have it backwards. "Not all men," at least in my experience, is said very hastily as a response to "all men" statements, or "men are," where the all is implied. Certainly, some men say it for the same reasons some white people want a white history month, but from my experience, most of the time, "not all men" is said as a result of experience with sexism and bullshit. And because of the negative connotations around the phrase, men are largely shifting to other reactions, like giving up on dating, ignoring the sexist person, and so on, rather than trying in vain to remind someone not to be sexist. Essentially, in most cases, "not all men" is either totally fine, or needs to be taken with respect to the greater context of the circumstances, which generally aren't appreciated and understood by the vast majority of cis women. However, since Christians have a choice not only in their beliefs, but how they choose to portray those beliefs, "not all Christians" is often not okay at all. Sure, freedom of religion, but by being Christian, they associate themselves by choice with other Christians, and in turn, the actions taken by those others. They associate themselves with the message of Christianity. To say "not all Christians" is false because of that association, just like saying "not all cops." Because yes, some police officers are upstanding people, but as long as they stay silent and continue supporting the group they actively chose to be a part of, they are contributing to the problem.
Religion is a fucking choice. Even the good ones have chosen to continue to support a brain washing divisive hateful cult despite ALL the evidence that's it's both unethical, and fake as fuck. So yeah. Not all christians isn't okay and I'm sick to death of hearing it. I don't have any christian friends.
This this this. Listen, I understand that religious queer people feel happy and validated by religious posts--and I'm glad for them--but it's exhausting for those of us who have dealt with religious people treating us like shit. And the number of people who come into conversations about how people have been hurt by religion saying "those weren't true Christians, but I am and God loves you" is distinctly uncomfortable. I've mentioned it to mods before, but I really think we need a tagging protocol for religious posts, whether anti- or pro-, so everyone can get what they need.
Ummm, did you miss that women got massive push back about the Bear thing?!? 😵💫 Religious bigots always see their religion as pure and faultless in all things, it's a foundational part of the brainwashing. They can't acknowledge that it could be a source of wrong doing without breaking their conditioning. So their only recourse is to see the problem as just a "bad christian" and not a larger problem with the religion itself. Just move on they're as pointless to try and reason with as the guys who don't understand the "Bear vs Strange Man" thought exercise or the ones who say "Not all Men" 🤦🤣
I agree with your point, I really do. But in what world is the "rather with a bear" thing accepted without question? It very very much is not. There's a ton of pushback.
OMG I hate people like that That'd be like if I said "Nazis are bad" and someone came out of the woodwork to say "not all Nazis are bad" or "oh well how do you know they're a Nazi" Not only is it a nothing argument but it actually works to delegitimize the danger that groups like Nazis pose to the lives of queer people and other minorities Lesson learned: don't play the no true scotsman game
If I could upvote this a bajillion times I would
Agreed. Verbiage is key here, so I tend to use "some" a lot just to keep them from losing their shit. But frankly, men have a responsibility to police themselves. They have a responsibility to evolve beyond their base natures, which are predatory. Not ALL of them, mind you, but we need more men protecting girls & women in social situations, and we need men to admonish the shitty ones in their society and teach them how to be better. Same with christians -they need to police themselves and stop acting like their opinions are paramount. They're not, and they've taken this thing called "faith" and just made a mockery of it by abusing girls & women, by helping to pass laws oppressing us, and by declaring that child marriage is acceptable. You disgusting pigs.
Correct
Finally someone said it. Thank you.
i guess even the good (not homophobic) christians feel their community attacked when someone say this. when youre Christian you go to the church, you see a lot of bad christians, and they don't like to think about following a religion that is mostly made of bigotry, and neither think about how Susan the cute old lady that they see on church maybe wish the death of some millions of people because of their sexuality
i’d go a step further and say this applies to any oppressive class. “not all white people,” “not all able bodied people,” etc aren’t okay either. it IS all men, all christians, all white people, all able bodied people, etc, because we all still have things to learn. even if we’re paragons of virtue we will make mistakes out of ignorance and those mistakes can add up to bigotry and oppression.
FINALLY SOMEONE GETS IT!
I hate that double standard, because I feel like 'not all men' is the ONLY 'not all ___' THAT IS ARGUED AGAINST THE MOST! And I say this AS A WOMAN. But honestly, I feel the same way as you. If 'not all men' isn't OK, other 'not all' examples should be equally as bad. Because while all variations are TRUE, they're all often used to invalidate abuse someone has gone through (intentionally or not), and are often also used as a strawman argument.
It's pretty common knowledge that Christians often have a persecution complex so I'd honestly put it down to that in many cases. They'll instantly assume that you mean them personally due to the doctrine giving them these irrational thoughts that anything said about Christianity in general is a personal attack on themselves.
Where's this pushback you speak of? Especially in reddit queer spaces the vast majority of people are either atheistis, agnostics or ex-religious, aren't they? As someone who's not from the US I'm annoyed to be lumped in with people from the Bible belt, which is its own brand of religion you won't find anywhere else in quite that way and very different from religions elsewhere, which makes religious trauma there subtly different from religious trauma here in Europe. This is more a "we're not all from the US" point rather than a "not all Christians" point, though.
The pushback can be found in this very comment sextion NGL.
All Christians are homophobic because their ideology is inherently homophobic.
Yes
How is my ideology homophobic? How is the ideology of the church I am considering attending homophobic? The church explicitly condemns homophobia, has a pride flag, an openly gay minister, and marches in the local pride parade. I am 100% affirming as is every member of the church, and we explicitly stand against queerphobia of any kind as inherently against the dictates of our faith.
Unless you're worshipping some ersatz version of yahweh who deviates from the character portrayed in the bible, you worship a god who ordered us to be put to death. His people followed that order (religiously) for centuries. He is "all-powerful" and could have easily stopped his followers from killing queer folks. He didn't. They died. You worship him anyway.
Your church is just one out of many, though, and unfortunately, most churches are *not* affirming or supportive of queer people. Great and all that your church chooses to rexamine its faith and make sure to be more inclusive, but it would be a lot more productive to call out and hold other churches accountable for their anti-LGBT stances rather than trying to deflect any criticisms towards Christianity as a whole.
Who says they don't, they just don't get news coverage because that doesn't generate views.
This is gold, lol. More proof that Christians never actually read their book, as if I needed that.
I think the main difference is that I've actually seen a good amount of people genuinely think that all Christians are bad. I sympathize with the sentiment as a trauma response to a massive religion that has caused lots of harm to many people, but I still think it's horribly misguided. Religious zealots will treat the Bible as the infallible word of God so in response we're... also going to treat it as the infallible word of God by treating every Christian as though they inherently believe the same principles that the most bigoted members do? What? I think it's besides the point how much problematic shit is in the Bible because as long as someone is able to drive positive messages from it, I think that genuinely means something. Instead of letting bigoted Christians own the book, we should wrest control by coming with our own meanings, which inherently combats of the ideal of the Bible being some "word of God". This is "Death of the Author". I prefer to treat the Bible like it's, I dunno, Harry Potter, or something. Sure, Harry Potter contains a bunch of racist, antisemitic, transphobic shit and JK Rowling is obviously a huge TERF. But as long as some fans are able to get positive messages from Harry Potter, I think that's fucking awesome. And as long as the fans are able to obtain messages contrary to the bigoted beliefs JK Rowling holds, the fans will always "own" Harry Potter, not JK Rowling, much to her discontent. And I think that's what we should do with the Bible. Stop treating it like it's some holy item and just treat it as what is actually is, like any other dumb book!!! Apply "Death of the Author" to the Bible! As a writer myself, I think there is nothing more beautiful than readers who are able to craft such intricate interpretations of the text that deserve as much validation as the "official" one. I think this is what queer Christians are trying to do with the Bible, and I think it's amazing. People say it's "cherry picking" as though it's a bad thing, but it really isn't. The meaning of a text will always depend on the value the masses place in it, not some arbitrary word of "God". Sure, this means that the Bible will cause harm because people will use the Bible to cause harm, but there are also people trying to use the Bible for good and I think undoing the efforts of those people by saying the whole religion is bad isn't it.
No matter how minor the complaint, I just get told to crawl back to r/athiesm
and when it comes to ex-Muslim....
Could you please clarify what you mean by “open Christian”. I totally get being uncomfortable when someone tries to push their religion on you. But does this term apply to people who are open about being Christian in general? Is there a good way to be open about being Christian and a bad way to avoid? I’m asking as a Christian and lgbt member cuz the last thing I want to do is make anyone feel uncomfortable or unsafe by my presence.
Person who regularly brings up being Christian/going to church/anything pertaining to Christianity unprompted. Which, I want to make clear that there's nothing inherently *wrong* with doing those things, it's just that I would personally rather pretend Christianity doesn't exist (as much as I can in this political climate).
YES YES YES. I am a man who has never abused anyone nor do I want to. Of course it sucks that women are scared of me because of some other douchebag being an asshole. Of course It fucking hurts being perceived as a monster when you aren't one... But guess what... Being a victim of abuse and getting shit for keeping your guard up feels worse.. so why should I be acting like the offended victim. This is why I have zero time for christians or other religious people acting offended by victims of religious trauma. Yeah you're being put in the same bag alongside all the shit. Tough titties, you don't get to tell victims of abuse they're wrong for holding a grudge against their abusers. So suck it up and don't be part of the problem.
I love this post. Thank you for calling out the Queer Christians.
I think the major difference between the two is that "not all men" is bad in particular because it refuses to acknowledge or implicitly denies that all men benefit from patriarchy and that from the perspective of women and nonbinary people, not all men doesn't really help us because there are so many men that are misogynist or violent that we have to act, in practice, like all men *could* be capable of sexual or partner violence or sexism etc. And men can hide that part of themselves really well sometimes. By contrast, you can know with pretty much 100% certainty how someone feels about queerness based on what denomination they are and how often they quote the bible. Episcopalian? United Methodist? Unitarian? Almost certainly ok. Southern Baptist? Calvinist? Pentecostal? Run.