"Radical Christianity just as threatening as Radical Islam" - Insensitive?

[Leopolds Ghost]

To be fair to the person who posted the thread about Rosie's remark, they meant "radical" in the sense of "conservative, Republican, or otherwise unacceptable" when used to refer to "Christian".

They probably didn't think that anyone who is devoutly religious would take offense (or perhaps assumed that you can't be too liberal and take your religion seriously, or else that taking ones religion too seriously -- the meaning of "radical" -- is in itself a bad thing.)

Is it ok on DU to suggest that these sorts of comment -- whether it is accurate transcription of a celebrity comment or not -- is an inadvertent, anti-religious insult, especially against liberal Christians and liberal Muslims who take their religion seriously, in the same sense that it is inappropriate to insult "Fat Republican women", as occurred in a recent thread?

Especially if that sort of thread turns into a hate-fest about how most fat people are Republicans, or declaring that Democrats who happen to be fat have to answer for their unhealthy lifestyle even if you aren't an actual Republican? A recent thread that turned into a series of jokes about fat Republicans got locked.

I put this in the form of a question, because in a recent post I asked why mods were permitting people on DU to make broad-brush insults against radical or liberal Christians (who take their religion seriously) and in some cases, against devout Muslims (in the abstract), with the same fervor reserved for deleting threads about "Fat Republicans", or "atheist Neocons".

a) I pointed out that I'm a radical Christian and the recent post attacking "radical Christians and radical Muslims" on religious grounds for causing the worlds problems, inadvertently insults genuine radical Christians such as myself (as well as devout Muslims in the generic sense) in the exact same fashion as a recent thread discussing "Big Fat Republican Women", with many replies taking the opportunity to overtly insult fat people and Christians (respectively) in both cases, by stereotyping them as Republicans. One thread was locked, the other is still active, regardless of the innocuous intentions of the original posters. Why? Is it inappropriate to mention this? I stated in my post that I didn't think either thread should be locked, but that in any event, the same standard should be applied to posts attacking Christianity as gets applied to posts attacking fat people or atheism or Islam. So hitting the alert button would not have been appropriate because this topic deserved discussion.

b) I pointed out that threads with the title "radical atheist neocons" automatically get deleted, yet when someone points that out and suggests fairness, given the proliferation of anti-religious posts whenever the subject is brought up, the person pointing this out tend to be challenged (e.g. "I don't know if you are a Democrat but you admitted yourself that you're a devout Christian and that's reason enough for me to call you on your bullshit") or even alerted.

c) I pointed out that threads which turn into a discussion of what part if any, liberal and radical Christians have to play in the Democratic party automatically get sent to the religion "dungeon",

While much bolder assertions that the party must proactively support secularism, or secularists in public and private life are not only allowed to remain on GD, instead of being banished to the religion forum, they are allowed to turn into anti-Christian (and in some
cases, as with the Mohammed cartoons, anti-Muslim) hate-fests.

d) If you call yourself a devout christian -- much less a "radical" Christian (http://www.jesusradicals.com) you run the risk of being alerted by multiple devout secularists on DU. as if to suggest that I must be a freeper if I am proud of my religious beliefs. Apparently, Christians (and sometimes Muslims) are not allowed to take offense at broad-brush venom directed at them by secularists who believe that their religion is the source of the world's problems.

In my public school, we were taught the meaning of stereotyping, scapegoating, etc. These are concepts that many of the supposedly "liberal" people I meet in real life were not taught, because I keep running into party activists who stereotype every black person, working class white person, and religious person they meet, except as theoretical concepts used to justify why "oppressed minorities" historically support the Democratic party, which is mainly a numbers game for these affluent, secular party actvists. They believe the party can survive without socially conservative, working class blacks and whites. That is their prerogative. It is not their prerogative to declare that people who disagree with them, especially progressive Christians but more often populists in general, do not belong in the party.

[CarlVK]

1. All religious fantaticism is potentially dangerous.

[Leopolds Ghost]

3. By religious fanaticism, are you referring to people who

take their religion too seriously?

[stanwyck]

13. Jimmy Carter's most recent book does

a thorough job of explaining the dangers of religious fanaticism - regardless of religion.
And Jimmy is a very spiritual person who is more action than talk. Consider his years of work with Habitat for Humanity and his continuing foreign travel on behalf of fair elections and diplomacy.

[Richard D]

2. Watch the Jesus Camp movie. . .

. . . insensitive remarks, maybe. True remarks, yes.

[Leopolds Ghost]

5. I am no more interested in watching a movie about misguided cultists

than you are in watching a movie about misguided atheists such as Charls Krauthammer, Nietsche, or Josef Stalin.

[Richard D]

10. Know the enemy.

Seriously. This radical Christian movement is really off the deep end.

[readmoreoften]

11. Yeah, well, you really should.

Because they're not "misguided cultists" they're the radical christians that O'Donnell was referring to, and they're hijacking your religion and making a militia of it. Instead of fighting the atheists or non-religious folks who are pointing this out to you, you might want to battle with these "misguided cultists" who are becoming a significant portion of the population.

If Stalin were alive today, I would certainly take him to task. But he's not. Oh, and I would be more than happy to watch a movie about him.

[Marnieworld]

18. misguided cultists?

Aren't you the one judging someone based on extent of religiosity now? You like your brand of Christianity but they are the cultists? It's amazing how you wrote so much about not demeaning Christians and then you went ahead and did it yourself.

How 'bout the next time you hear "Radical Christians" you don't think they are talking about you but instead assume it's the group you would judge. Assume they mean the ones that want to make all laws based on the Bible, call it a Christian nation and remove all women from the workforce to raise the children they'll be forced to have. Rosie was talking about the ones that want to prevent her from having equal civil rights. These same "radicals" held up the bible at one point to justify slavery and no interfaith or inter-racial marriage too. If these people who want everyone to be Christian, exactly their type of Christianity, are not like you then don't be offended when they are criticized. It's just a label used to describe people wanting to control and change others according to their individual beliefs and are actively working to do this. If this isn't "radical" then what would it be? Misguided is entirely too mild a phrase when you look at any Domininist website.

:eyes:

[Malikshah]

4. The Crusades show it doesn't take "Radical" to create

thousands of dead.

[Leopolds Ghost]

9. You're right. All it takes is simple greed and human blood-lust

Which are found throughout history. Long before religion was around to inspire people to do good, your ancestors had no problem justifying the violent extinction of all other anthropoids, starting with whichever ones looked most like you and me. But continue, if you wish, to assume that the program of modernism and secularism -- whose only goal is to establish a system of ethics based on whatever is of the greatest utility to our species -- will rescue us from our species' inherently extreme tendencies.

[underpants]

6. Beware of the radical Presbyterians

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/7235393/the_crusaders/

[Bluebear]

7. If you have questions about threads being moved, etc....

it's always best to write the administrators.

[Leopolds Ghost]

19. Who are "the administrators"?

I wrote Elad once about a technical problem. I didn't get a reply but maybe a reply was not needed. This subject does not concern the high-up admins like Skinner, it's a topical fairness issue about a specific topic. Unless you are suggesting that I am merely misinformed and the issue is purely an informational one ("these are our rules" etc.)

I am posting this in GD because it is a GD issue that needs to be discussed or else the behavior will not change. To the extent that it's a moderator issue, it is only an issue of inconsistency on the part of moderators, brought on by popular acclaim (i.e. devout Christians are unpopular on DU, less popular than Fat Republican Women).

None of the actual moderators are listed by email or PMail in the Contact Us page. If I contacted one of them, I'm suspecting that I would be shined on ("Your comments are important to us, we will take them into consideration"), or, if I pick the wrtong moderator, chances are I'll be told ("These are our rules. If you don't like it go to a forum where someone gives a shit about the fact that you are religious."), which I was told the last time I asked a moderator about this issue a year ago, when there were a lot of anti-religious (not just anti-fundie) threads on GD. Which is of course the same type of language people get from anti-religious folks (regardless of whether they're atheist, agnostic, lapsed catholic or wiccan, doesn't matter) whenever someone points out that they're a devoutly religious Democrat.

I would have no problem with posts defending christian Democrats getting banished to the religion forum if it were the case that all posts about religion or atheism were treated in that fashion (including posts discussing the religious motives of Republicans, the need for Democrats to be devout secularists, why religion is the cause of all our problems, why "extreme" religion or "religious extremism" can be scapegoated, ignoring all economic or cultural factors motivating millionaires like Bush and Bin Laden, etc.) Since those posts occur on GD all the time, this is a subject that deserves discussion on GD.

[tularetom]

8. Anybody who has to repeatedly proclaim how religious they are

ain't very religious. Don't feel like you have to defend your beliefs - they are as valid as anyone else's - but no more so.

[stanwyck]

16. actually, that's one of the clues, isn't it?

Since Jesus admonished his followers to honor their faith quietly and privately. Also, he taught that Christianity is a path. You can't proclaim yourself a Christian. You can be on the path to Christianity. (I am the path. I am the way). Whether or not you actually attain being a Christian is not something the individual can judge.
That's the meaning of the higher power.
Odd that we now have so many showboating Christians, loudly proclaiming themselves Christians.
You have to wonder if they ever read The Bible.

[Swede]

12. The word radical is linked with the word extremists..

That's just the way it is. You should think of a different discription for your beliefs. I know it's symantics,but it is what it is.

[JustFiveMoreMinutes]

22. I agree with you

The remark in itself wasn't insensitive, its was simply a problem with the semantics of what the speaker meant when using the word, and the listener having a different meaning of the word.

I really dont think that the average American knows that a devout Christian has adopted the term Radical Christian to apply to themselves. And if a Devout Christian HAS associated themselves with such a group, I sure hope they looked deep and long into what they were agreeing to.

Radical.. extremist.

Devout.. devoted.

[shadowknows69]

14. Spot on truth

Radical Christians have quite an impressive body count through history.

[endarkenment]

15. religious radicals are exceptionally dangerous

I don't care if they are pushing Jesus, Mohammed, or the FSM. If you want to distort the clear meaning of Rosie's remarks, what she meant by 'radical' fine, but I think you know exactly what she was talking about. The radical religious people intend to impose their religious views of society on you and me and that is hugely dangerous to us and to secular society.

[sweetheart]

17. Given Jesus' life...

..there is no question where he would stand. That there is some question is to what perversion christianity has become.

[me b zola]

20. Then what do you propose that we call Dobson, Phillips, and the like?

I don't believe that I have seen any of our Muslim members complaining about calling rw extremist Muslims who blow things up and take away civil liberties of women and gays as being radical--so why does it bother you if we hold the same standard to christianity?

You mention atheists, but there is no radical athiest group that is trying to rewrite the Constitution & the Bill of Rights. There are no athiests who bomb and blow up people because of their beliefs.

Let me ask you this, no snark intended, I really am just asking. Is the real problem that you are offended by the comparrison to radical Islam?

[Finder]

21. If you are a "radical" theist in the US then you need...

A: Education

B: Medication

C: Army of God PJs

[truebrit71]

23. Nope. Not in the slightest. Absolutely spot on.

Radical Christians are no more christian, than their rabid radical muslim counterparts are muslims...

Rosie pointed out an obvious truth, and the fundies wet their knickers...

Fuck 'em.

[pinto]

24. Locking. Please see this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules.html

6. Forum Administration: Respect the moderators and administrators, and respect their decisions. You can help make their job easier by clicking the "Alert" link on any post that might need moderator attention. Please understand that moderating errors and inconsistencies are inevitable on a large website like this. If you have a question about DU policies, or if you have a concern about an action a moderator has taken, please contact an admin privately.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/contact.html

Thanks.