Why is it ok to stereotype or generalize the "religious"?

[#10 Jersey]

On these boards we often see claims of stereotyping or generalization, and having people called out for it. But when someone does this with regard to those who are considered "religious", there is never a similar claim.

[afgrijselijkheid]

On these boards we often see claims of stereotyping or generalization, and having people called out for it. But when someone does this with regard to those who are considered "religious", there is never a similar claim.
"religious" or "religious right"? there is a difference

either way, it might be best if you provided an example

[#10 Jersey]

"religious" or "religious right"? there is a difference

either way, it might be best if you provided an example

too many to provide. We've seen many examples in the political forum.

[flowergirl]

well, if you're referring to the use of "christian", that's sort of by definition a generalization, in that it's a broader category of different religions that have the same core value.

other than that, you'd have to give an example of this stereotyping. dunno what you're getting at.

[oman]

too many to provide. We've seen many examples in the political forum.

Well, other than Christians having an intellectual flaccidity, I usually don't stereotype.



I think young flowergirl has a point. People tend to attack religiious when it seems to be used to further some other good. For instance, the Religious Right or some Republicans using religoun to further their agenda, or worse, to instill fear or hatred in order to win votes.

I'd give you examples but we've seen many in the political forum.

[oman]

On these boards we often see claims of stereotyping or generalization, and having people called out for it. But when someone does this with regard to those who are considered "religious", there is never a similar claim.

Perhaps people are willing to attack the religious because sometimes they seem hypocritical or hypersensitive even after their is evidence that they attack others.

http://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showthread.php?t=309903

[Riz]

"religious" or "religious right"? there is a difference

either way, it might be best if you provided an example

The term "religious right" irks the hell out of me. I personally prefer "conservative [denomination]" when referring to such.

Just me though, I think.

[Chicago1871]

Just me though, I think.
I'm not sure that religious members of the right side of the political spectrum are still qualified to be called conservative, save for one area; religion.

[Yankee_Blue]

too many to provide. We've seen many examples in the political forum.

Usually the terms used contain "plausable deniability", or its a buzzword, like the use of the phrase "urban areas" to mean "black areas". Most on here have a fairly myopic view of Christianity, IMHO. My advice is to develop a thicker skin and deal with it.

[oman]

Usually the terms used contain "plausable deniability", or its a buzzword, like the use of the phrase "urban areas" to mean "black areas". Most on here have a fairly myopic view of Christianity, IMHO. My advice is to develop a thicker skin and deal with it.

We may be thinking the same thing but when you put it in those terms it makes Chrisitians seem like they are victims. Even if attacked unfairly, Chrisitans should never put on the victim mantle. Dealing with it means looking for the cause of that myopic view (or even non-myopic, spot on view) and dealing with that in a positive and when it fits, aggressive way.

I come to this from the other side. I think "Christians" -- collectively -- deserve what they get because I can't believe what some people do in the name of Christianity. I despise this Administration and I want to throw up when they throw the mantle of Christianity over themselves. That is just one example. I don't put this on the level of sitting by while the Nazis did their dirty work. Who stands up for the poor and economically oppressed and the bombed these days? Not the mainstream Protestant US churches. There are individuals in all of these Churches who constantly do good Christian work. But politically, the leaders of these Churches seemingly never stand up for any sort of liberation theology or make a political stand.

Where are the Deitrich Bonhoeffer these days? Where are the kinds of men who stoop up against the Contras?

There they are. Sipping cappacino at Orange County's newest megachurch.

[Yankee_Blue]

We may be thinking the same thing but when you put it in those terms it makes Chrisitians seem like they are victims. Even if attacked unfairly, Chrisitans should never put on the victim mantle. Dealing with it means looking for the cause of that myopic view (or even non-myopic, spot on view) and dealing with that in a positive and when it fits, aggressive way.

Probably thinking along the same lines. I am not for putting on the victim mantle, either. Having said that, I would suggest that more than a few posters on here have a stereotypical, generalized view of Christians and Christianity. This is not always a "bad" thing, I think, after all we all come here with a certain set of presuppositions about things.

As far as dealing with some generalizations that persons have, well, I'd rather deal with questions as opposed to someones blanket assertions. It's much easier to debate when open, honest questions are asked rather than replying to biting commentary. Sadly, there is much more of the former here than the latter.

[christopher d]

Who stands up for the poor and economically oppressed and the bombed these days? Not the mainstream Protestant US churches. There are individuals in all of these Churches who constantly do good Christian work. But politically, the leaders of these Churches seemingly never stand up for any sort of liberation theology or make a political stand.

Where are the Deitrich Bonhoeffer these days? Where are the kinds of men who stoop up against the Contras?



Right here (http://www.opinionjournal.com/taste/?id=110003230)

[manoa]

Interesting take on things oman. Honestly, while I also wish the leadership of the 'mainstream'/'liberal' Protestant denominations were more aggressive (courageous) in their public stances, to the degree one or the other ( the relative politics of leadership vs. congregants) are true, I'd be more inclined to reverse it. While most of the lay people i know are good-hearted folks who spent an awful lot of time trying to clothe the naked, feed the hungry, etc., these are not, by-and-large what i'd call politically sophisticated people, especially on things like peace & justice issues. Whereas I know a bunch of pastors (I can't say I know too many bishops personally, though I'm inclined to believe it's also true for them) whose views on things like economics or human rights or militarism could probably be classified as "radical", at least by the standards of current US political discourse. They don't speak up, unfortunately, not because they're scared of those in power, but because their base (ie membership) would not support them doing so.

re: the link on Griswols provided by christopher d: You-Know-Who, Mary & Joseph----Fred Barnes!!! There's a name I've not even thought of for years. A man for whom it's truly astonishing his "career" ever progressed beyond throwing a rubber-tipped javelin at the Special Olympics.

[christopher d]

re: the link on Griswols provided by christopher d: You-Know-Who, Mary & Joseph----Fred Barnes!!! There's a name I've not even thought of for years. A man for whom it's truly astonishing his "career" ever progressed beyond throwing a rubber-tipped javelin at the Special Olympics.Yeah... most of the fun of posting that article was being able to laugh at it. :)

[Norsk Troll]

Why is it ok to stereotype or generalize the "religious"?Yeah, because the religious never stereotype or generalize about atheists.

[Nanbawan]

Cognitive lazyness. At the very moment, you denominate a group of people with one word, this term tends to be loaded with the different characteristics that defined it. So, it's a lil bit more demanding to use this word while knowing there's more to it than what quickly comes to mind.

[Matt in the Hat]

Cognitive lazyness. At the very moment, you denominate a group of people with one word, this term tends to be loaded with the different characteristics that defined it. So, it's a lil bit more demanding to use this word while knowing there's more to it than what quickly comes to mind.
You mean like French?

[Nanbawan]

You mean like French?

Very good example ! ;)

BTW, we don't produce wine in Brittany...See...

[#10 Jersey]

Yeah, because the religious never stereotype or generalize about atheists.

So that is your reason that it is ok?

[Norsk Troll]

So that is your reason that it is ok?
No, that is me pointing out that everyone stereotypes and generalizes everyone else, and to posit that religious people are bearing more of the brunt of this human behavior than others is laughable.