This is going to make me some enemies, but I'm too cranky to care.

[kellinator]

Dear Everyone Who's Whining About What a Terrible Man St. Patrick Was and How Pagans Are So Oppressed,

I was looking forward to an evening of St. Patrick's Day fun with friends, so forgive me for being a little bit cranky about all the vitriol being launched on here today.

Are we Christians supposed to spend the day apologizing for St. Patrick converting Ireland fifteen hundred years ago? I'm no expert in Druidic practices, but how do we really know that the Druids were happy-love-everybody people and St. Patrick was a jerk determined to make sure no one was having a good time? It's not as simple as pagans good/Patrick bad (nor, I suppose, as simple as Patrick good/pagans bad). Imagine you're the person who got picked for the human sacrifice and see if you still think so.

Christianity is not all about hate and oppression, no matter what Jerry Falwell tells you. It's got some good ideas about kindness to one's fellow man. Many terrible sins have been committed in the name of Christ, but much good has been done too.

A lot of people out there seem to demand toleration for everyone but Christians. I almost didn't make this post because I knew it would piss people off, but that would be denying what I feel and what I believe. If it's okay for you to express your faith, then it's okay for me to express mine. I may be a lousy excuse for a Christian, but I still am one. If you want religious toleration, I think that's terrific, but you ought to have some for the Christians too. We progressive Christians have got enough to worry about with retaking our faith from the Pharisees currently in charge without having to constantly apologize for being Christian.

And I'm fucking terrified of snakes, so St. Patrick, you're okay in my book.

Comments

[kellinator.livejournal.com]

It's a very tough line. I'm torn between the desire to witness and the fact that I know evangelizing can be annoying (think of all the Jehovah's Witnesses jokes) and I don't want people to shut out Christianity just because I'm annoying. :/

[tikimama.livejournal.com]

I think it is like marketing--you have the most success with those who are open to it. It's like a "warm call" rather than a "cold call."

I'm actually personally against proselytizing, but I know that witnessing really is important (to being a good Christian).

I should start witnessing for logic!

[maida-mac.livejournal.com]

Heather, I must say that I think you already do.

[tikimama.livejournal.com]

Not so much anymore--I've given up "debating" with people on the internet, since it really isn't debate so much as argument, as pointless argument at that.

But thanks.

[maida-mac.livejournal.com]

I certainly understand that.

[missrachael.livejournal.com]

The best witness is a silent witness.

(Which I suck at being too, but you know.)

consider this notion

[stress-rash.livejournal.com]

in this society, in this day and age, to proseltyze is redundant. Non-christians get their knickers in a twist against proseltyzing because, good gravy it's everywhere. When I mention that I am a Quaker, people often get curious and ask me about it. I am all too happy to "evangelize" if they ask. When you tell people you are a christian, do they ask? Probably ask which specific sect you belong to maybe but I'm betting that's the extent of it. No one asks "gee what is Christianity and why's it so great?" in this country because you'd honestly have to be an illiterate crawling out from under a rock NOT to know this already. Funny how Christianity is one of the "big four" yet it's the one EVERYONE knows about. It's in our holidays, our government, our history, it's everywhere. You don't have to proseltyze because no one in this country really needs it. Anyone here who hasn't accepted Christ is most likely fully aware of that fact, thus you are not neglecting your duty if you don't try to convert anyone.

to explain some of the annoyance

[stress-rash.livejournal.com]

those of us "heathens" who refuse to accept Christ get irked by proseltyzing; it's like a tag-a-long kid brother. You think to yourself "I already have to live with you, why must I have to take you with me everywhere as well? Is there no peace?"

I have no beef with my Christian friends, in fact, they are my friends in part because I see them believe and practice their faith in true form rather than being all-talk like many Christians. What I have a beef with is being preached at and it's because I feel it insults my intelligence.

I have been smacked upside the head nearly every day of my life with Christian ideas, beliefs and practices. I have been coerced and sometimes forced to act as if I too believe and practice this religion. I have been pushed to deny my own beliefs in favor of pretending to be Christian for the sake of jobs, family and my own safety. I have even been told by "good Christians" that I ought to just "go along" with it, as if my own beliefs are so inconsequential that faking Christian belief is somehow better than standing up for what I DO believe in!

Why in the world do I need yet another person coming up and talking to me as if I know nothing of their religion? Usually I know more than they do!

My inquiries have shown that other non-christians feel pretty much this way.

All in all, I agree with you about the St. Pat thing. On the other hand, it's probably (I didn't see what you're talking about) just another example of non-christian backlash. Can't say as I blame non-christians for it, but it's still bad form.

Re: to explain some of the annoyance

[10dimensions.livejournal.com]

I agree with this post.

[piratejenny.livejournal.com]

And sadly, I now have to say that even JWs mean well. Mostly. Okay, that they're just like real people. For the most part.

Can in-laws ever be just like real people?

(And no, T's no longer one of 'em. But he's great if I need to know something about the Bible. Plus as a kid he made a nun cry.)

[tikimama.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure you can use the term "logical conclusion" in reference to Christian theory at all. It has no basis in logic, other than of the cyclical variety. Why do we do these things? Because God tells us to. And around and around. It is the Command of the Bible that you do these things, which is the only reason. It's the "know" part that those of us outside have an issue with. You have reached a conclusion using (what atheists consider) improper reasoning, therefore the conclusion is false.

I understand your point (and I am relatively well versed in theology) but I don't really think that most Christians can fall back on this reasoning. Because they pick and choose among what the Bible says to follow. Some of the old Testament, some of what Jesus says (but not the hard stuff), etc.

I appreciate that you took the time to explain it to me in a kind and considerate fashion (you do your religion proud), but I think in a pluralistic society witnessing is to be discouraged. I know many do it out of love, which is unfortunate.

[tikimama.livejournal.com]

I wrote a long thing about logic and evidence and being tolerant, but really, what's the point? I'll just give myself a headache.

It comes down to the fact that I don't believe in any God, and therefore the Bible has no relevance to me. You do and so it does. There is no logicing or presenting evidence that will make a jot of difference to either of us. We base our conclusions on different foundations.

I have the same level of tolerance/intolerance for everyone with religious beliefs anyway, so I totally agree with Kelly's original point.

[10dimensions.livejournal.com]

"If I see you doing something wrong and don't tell you that you should change, I am partially responsible for your wrong doing."

But who are you to say what's "wrong" for anyone but yourself?

[10dimensions.livejournal.com]

No, it's not the same thing, actually. There's a rather large difference between secular laws that are decided upon by a society at large and that individuals within that society choose to live under the bounds of, and religious ideas about what is right and wrong.

Secular laws are [ideally and hopefully] created to provide the most amount of freedom to citizens while preventing them from using that freedom to do harm to others or to restrict their freedoms. I say "ideally and hopefully" because these laws begin to go wrong when secular govt begins involving themselves in the personal business of its citizens, where that person's business has no bearing on anyone but themselves. As an instance, gay marriage. This is a religious issue, not a secular one, but some religions feel it should be secularly controlled.

For a religious person to come along and tell a gay person that their lifestyle is wrong and should not be allowed is in NO WAY the same idea as a law that makes murder or theft a crime. This is just one example taken off the top of my head, but there are plenty of others. If it is your belief that homosexuality is evil then you are certainly entitled to it. But you are not entitled to tell someone who feels differently that they are doing wrong, any more than someone else would be entitled to tell you that you have to marry someone of the same sex. It works both ways, you know. Preventing religions from doing this to different-thinking individuals was one of the reasons for the founding of our country.

It's called cultural relativism. Certain behaviors are generally agreed upon as undesirable in almost all human societies. Certain behaviors are judged depending on the culture they are found in. The belief that you [universal you] know what is absolute right or wrong for other people, and that you are entitled to judge for that person is, in my eyes, the pride that goeth before a fall. It sure is easy to stumble with that damn beam in your eye.