|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2007 3:07 pm
Nope this isn't about Adam and Eve! whee
Actually, another thread just got me thinking about how we (we as a people... THIS guild's participants seem to be pretty good) sometimes judge a religion on it's "bad apples."
My thought process went like this (And I apologize ahead of time to Soupygirl if I put words into her mouth (sort of... actually, I am sort of going to give her the benefit of the doubt, but anyway... redface ) Most of the time when we say things like soupygirl Also I believe Catholism gives Christanity a bad name (now I'm going to get hate messages sweatdrop ) Christanity is NOT like that.
Not an ACTUAL dislike of CATHOLICS but of the Bad Apples that get so much attention... we don't want to be associated with that. We distance ourselves because we get afraid people will hear that and think, "Oh, hey, they are Christian... are you like that?"
I get this a lot with Polygamy. I am a Mormon. We do not practice polygamy today, but we DID back in the day. Nowadays (as in, for the past 100 years or so) you would be kicked out of the church for being a polygamist. But I hear people in my faith so nervous about creepy Warren Jeffs, so scared of the image he portrays, that people ask them if the Mormons are polygamists and they knee-jerk and go "No! Umm... Never!" Which isn't true.
Maybe I am just ranting. I just wanted to say, we need to be careful about judging a religion or group on their bad apples. Just don't do it. There are GOOD people in all religions (and bad. They have bad people, too.)... in all belief systems. Judge people by THEIR actions. Not by the actions of their slimy neighbors.
Thoughts?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2007 3:17 pm
Nice post. Fear just naturally sticks with people, though, and we also like to oversimplify things to make the world more manageable. At the first sign of foul play it's just too easy to lump a whole group together and slap a "bad" label on them - makes things easy, though not necessarily right.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2007 3:22 pm
hahaha.... yeah kind of words in my mouth.... i was talking about when people do Christianity that they are turned off by it sometimes Catholic beliefs.... I really should not have said that sad (sorry all Catholic passionate people) I just don't agree with what they say and do since I'm a Christian also...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2007 3:28 pm
soupygirl hahaha.... yeah kind of words in my mouth.... i was talking about when people do Christianity that they are turned off by it sometimes Catholic beliefs.... I really should not have said that sad (sorry all Catholic passionate people) I just don't agree with what they say and do since I'm a Christian also... My apologies... sort of xd hee hee. Okay, no, I really do apologize, I just put my own spin on it. I do not agree with the Catholic faith (as I said I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, so... yeah), but I do believe there are many Catholic people who are doing their best to follow Christ according to what they believe and I admire that. But I equally admire those of other faiths following truth to the best of THEIR abilities, too. I believe that God rewards that. mrgreen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A Murder of Angels Captain
|
Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2007 11:54 pm
I think you raised a very valid point. It can be so easy to say intolerant things, even without meaning to, or not thinking that you're being intolerant. Threads like this cause people to examine what they're saying, which is a great thing for tolerance.
And as for a few bad examples spoiling a religion's image to outsiders, it's an all too common situation, generally known as a stereotype. Unfortunately, the only thing most people know of religions outside of their own is stereotypes. That's prolly my biggest reason for wanting to learn so much about different religions, personally... When someone says something about a religion that I know is incorrect, I will most definitely call them on it. It's frustrating though when you find someone who is so blinded by their personal beliefs that they're unwilling to be proven wrong...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 07, 2007 6:47 am
I think that the media causes the most problems with spreading this intolerance with bad examples. The crazy people always get the most time on the news because it draws people in. The media seems to give the attention to two groups of people when it comes to religion. The insanely zealous extremists and the vocal minority.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 07, 2007 7:02 am
Generalizing is practically hardwired into the very psychology of the human being. We put things into categories, and depending on how a person goes about doing that, you end up with a person generalizing about a broader group than they should be. We categorize because we have to in order to make sense of the world around us... generalizing is a byproduct of that and often, generalizing is extremely useful in day to day living. It helps us predict the flow of events and know how to act in a given sittuation.
Categorizing is influenced by how close you see yourself in relation to another thing. There's 'in' groups and 'out' groups... or 'more like me' and 'less like me.' We have an innate tendancy to see the 'out' group as more homogenous than it really is, so we generalize more about things that are not part of our group or we perceive as more different from us than something else. So someone who is not part of the Mormon faith is much more likely to broadly generalize about that group than someone who identifies with that group. If you think the two sexes are widely differnet, you're prone to making generazations about the opposite sex.
Judging by 'bad apples' is a slightly different phenomena, but can lead to generalizations too, particularly if that 'bad apple' is part of the 'out group.' Often we like to keep the 'out group' out there, and one way to rationalize that is to demonize the out group. So you're a bit more likely to fixate on cases that confirm the out-group status wheras if the same sort of thing happened in your own group, you'd dismiss that as an abberation.
Psychology is interesting, ne?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 12, 2008 2:14 pm
You're right. We focus too much on the bad apples. The bigger something gets, the more likely there is to be corruption within the ranks. First, you can't manage a lot of people as easily as a few. Just raising your numbers increases the possibilities of something happening. Let's use the Catholic priests for example. Only a few actually raped little boys out of how many Catholic priests? How many Catholics are out there total? It is only natural some bad apples will sneak in.
I'll address the Mormons too. Polygamy was never accepted in the time they came out. (Actually, I don't think it was ever accepted in U.S history) I am pretty sure they had a valid reason for doing what they did. I think part of their holy book saids something. I read it somewhere. (Can you get this passage out?)
Then, of course she has a point. That hasn't been practiced in 100 years. You can't hold the people today responsible for what their relatives did in the past. Do you think they had any control in that?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 13, 2008 10:02 am
ffdarkangel Then, of course she has a point. That hasn't been practiced in 100 years. You can't hold the people today responsible for what their relatives did in the past. Do you think they had any control in that? We seem to do it a lot. Look at the slavery reparations movement. People were asking the American government in the year 2000 to apologize for salvery. Then private companies were sued for their practices during the time of slavery. I find it ridiculous for the reason you stated but I'm just waiting for someone to call me a racist.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 4:32 pm
ffdarkangel You're right. We focus too much on the bad apples. The bigger something gets, the more likely there is to be corruption within the ranks. First, you can't manage a lot of people as easily as a few. Just raising your numbers increases the possibilities of something happening. Let's use the Catholic priests for example. Only a few actually raped little boys out of how many Catholic priests? How many Catholics are out there total? It is only natural some bad apples will sneak in. I'll address the Mormons too. Polygamy was never accepted in the time they came out. (Actually, I don't think it was ever accepted in U.S history) I am pretty sure they had a valid reason for doing what they did. I think part of their holy book saids something. I read it somewhere. (Can you get this passage out?) Then, of course she has a point. That hasn't been practiced in 100 years. You can't hold the people today responsible for what their relatives did in the past. Do you think they had any control in that? In the Bible there were instances of ALLOWED plural marriage (like how David had more than one wife but he wasn't sinning till he was cheating with Bathsheba) but I think the one you are thinking of is in the Book of Mormon. Jacob 2:30 "For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people [to practice plural marriage]; otherwise they shall [have only one wife.] And I do believe they were doing what they felt was right... but I am sure glad we do NOT practice it today. *shudder*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 12:20 pm
I agree. I'm Christian, and I saw this show ( I forget the name) where they had this VERY obese woman shrieking and yelling at people, going "THIS IS NOT GODLY!", and just basically freaking out. I believe that people like her are the reason why so many people think that Christians are intolerant morons, when really, quite a few of us aren't.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 2:34 pm
Conan The Barbie Doll I agree. I'm Christian, and I saw this show ( I forget the name) where they had this VERY obese woman shrieking and yelling at people, going "THIS IS NOT GODLY!", and just basically freaking out. I believe that people like her are the reason why so many people think that Christians are intolerant morons, when really, quite a few of us aren't. I think that was Trading Spouses (which boggles my mind why that woman would be on a show that seems to almost promote adultery). The media loves people like that. They love those people that are so outlandish that sometimes they are a characiture (sp) of the view they represent. Crazy = Ratings. Ratings = Money. Therefore, Crazy = Money
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 14, 2008 9:42 pm
I totally agree, i hate that.
Like so many ignorant people say 'God sucks, Christians suck' simply because they ran into a bible thumping crazy, we're immediately all labeled crazy.
Some crazy Islamic extremists bomb NY, and now in the air port when they see someone Middle Eastern its a red flag =/
It's crazy how some people are, stereotyping so.
Its like a never ending cycle. Because then the stereotyping Atheists make other religions think all Atheists are closed minded..BAH XD
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 15, 2008 6:20 pm
Kraggus Doomhammer ffdarkangel Then, of course she has a point. That hasn't been practiced in 100 years. You can't hold the people today responsible for what their relatives did in the past. Do you think they had any control in that? We seem to do it a lot. Look at the slavery reparations movement. People were asking the American government in the year 2000 to apologize for salvery. Then private companies were sued for their practices during the time of slavery. I find it ridiculous for the reason you stated but I'm just waiting for someone to call me a racist. The people responsible are not alive. It is not their relatives problems (or the further leaders of the company). I focus on the individual, not the group as a whole. Plus, slavery back then was the back bone of the South's economy (this does not mean I support this, I really can't stand slavery), and they couldn't imagine it without it. Naturally, slaves were in companies in the South. A example today is migrant workers. Is it right? Probably not, but they are cheaper to pay and don't require as much. It is the dark side of capitalism that you have to accept.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2008 11:18 am
Kraggus Doomhammer ffdarkangel Then, of course she has a point. That hasn't been practiced in 100 years. You can't hold the people today responsible for what their relatives did in the past. Do you think they had any control in that? We seem to do it a lot. Look at the slavery reparations movement. People were asking the American government in the year 2000 to apologize for salvery. Then private companies were sued for their practices during the time of slavery. I find it ridiculous for the reason you stated but I'm just waiting for someone to call me a racist. This is off topic, but i really hate that reparations idea. The idea of 'i dont want to do this, i will make someone else do it' Is quite old, and slavery has happened all over in the past. Slavery in Greece, slavery in Rome, and slavery in Egypt =/ It was only from about 1790-1860, thats not near as long as the slavery in Egypt was when they build the pyramids. Also, there is still slavery amongst indigenous tribes in Africa and New Guinea=/ Not to mention in America, the human trafficking problem, forcing young girls and women to be sex slaves and house maids illegally.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
