Consistency and Prejudice

Sunday afternoon, late, I discovered a blogswarm titled 'Blog against Theocracy'. First I'd ever heard of blogswarms, but then, there's a lot about blogging I'm learning by doing. My initial good feelings were quickly soured though, for while many of the blog posts were well-researched and thoughtfully written, many settled for promoting religious prejudice instead.

Over and over again "Christians this" and "Christians that" as if Christians were some vast collection of clones, the ultimate super-organism comprised of millions, billions in the long term, of people who believe, feel, do, think exactly the same thing about everything.

We are not. Having grown up in a conservative denomination of Christianity, my father a minister, I've seen first hand just how much diversity there is in thought, belief and deeds within even a single congregation with very explicit and precise statements of faith. When one then considers the huge range of disagreement over just about every possible detail, assumption, conclusion, interpretation among the various sects of Christianity - it becomes pretty darned safe to say:

When you really look at what individual Christians believe, there are as many understandings of what Christianity believes as there are Christians.

Blaming all Christians for supporting homophobia, the Iraq war, or anything else, is prejudice. Focus on the specifics, the harm, the ideas, processes and the profits.

I realize that it can be difficult to define terms, when rebuking something, with complete accuracy. One cannot add enough modifying terms to completely eliminate overly broad generalizations. But, there is a huge difference between "Christians believe homosexuality is sin" and "Conservative Christians believe - - -" and even more with "Some Conservative Christians believe - - -" or "Those Conservative Christians who believe - - -". There is a real challenge to find the appropriate level of specificity.

For those who do write about the abusive skeins of Christianity, there are options that are far more accurate than the blanket "Christians". You can use "Conservative Christians" and be more accurate, though there are exceptions at that level. You can use "Evangelical Conservative Christians" to increase specificity, though there will still be exceptions. Terms like "dominationist" and "dominionist" work well, for they focus on the specific mindset of seeking control over others. I'm rather partial to the term "theofascists". And the catch-all "Some" leaves plenty of room for all of the exceptions, while acknowledging that there are real examples that fit the accusation to follow.

But the blanket generalization about Christians that some atheists make are no different from the blanket generalizations made by some conservative Christians about homosexuals, or the blanket generalizations made by some light-skinned people about dark-skinned people, etc.

I would just ignore it, but there is a real problem involved here. When someone who is not religious engages in the same dominationist tactic as employed by some religious people, even to criticize them, he or she has actually affirmed their behavior.

And, trust me, from years and years of experience - the Pat Robertsons and Fred Phelps don't want or seek anyone else's approval - they seek affirmation and repetition of their behavior. If they can get you to revile and harass others, to employ prejudice and advocate discrimination, that's all the really matters, for it makes their own abusive acts acceptable.

The guess 'homosexuality is sin' is not really about "what the Bible says" and especially not about "what would Jesus do". It is about something far more primal than that.

Most living organism engage in some form of dominance behavior. Beetles fight for mates or food, coral polyps fight for space and sunlight, meerkats fight for social dominance within their group, and with other groups for territory. Presented as a formula, one way of expressing it is:

Seek dominance by harming others for personal gain

Harming others can be significant as violence, as intangible as insults and false accusations, as pervasive as laws and imprisonment. In very social organisms, like humans, it can be enough just to harm someone's reputation, to malign their appearance in the eyes of the rest of the community. The rewards of dominance can be as extreme as theocracy, and other forms of autocratic control over people's very lives, as intangible as feeling better than others, or feeling less a sinner. It can be material as well: let's not forget the many conservative christians who use their condemnation of homosexuality to make money. It can be an increased status within the social group, or simply the exclusion of competitors.

This is the core process beneath any prejudice - racial prejudice, anti-semitism, misogyny, homophobia. A group of people actively seeking to harm others for their own personal gain.

And sadly, that process is also at work in claims that revile all Christians, or that, as has happened to me, dismiss us as mentally ill, stupid, delusional, etc. Someone is seeking dominance over others by harming them with negative labels. It isn't honest, it isn't helpful, it actually encourages and supports every other flavor of prejudice.

And, by employing that particular process to attack Christians in total, just as homophobes use it to attack GLBTQ people in total, or racists use it to attack people of color,

those who make such 'Christians this' and 'Christians that' claims are supporting what actually does matter to theocrats - the use of power to achieve material goals at the expense of others.

I'm opposed to theofascism, but also opposed to atheofascism as well.

There is one other, huge problem with defining Christians by those Christians who violate the civil rights, humanity, physical bodies of others. Since they tend to claim that they have "the truth" about God, when someone says "look, that anti-gay legislation, that's Christianity" even in rebuke, he or she is confirming the very premise that dominationist Christians are trying to establish in order to achieve domination. They need to define Christianity in their terms, to pre-silence rebuke.

It is important to remember that dominationist Christians are no less capable of reason than anyone else. Sure, those who stand to gain the most materially may be all but unreachable, but, the people in the pews, if given accurate information, are capable of analysis, reason, and consideration. But it does have to presented within their context, and with at least a moderate about of tolerance for their faith, and some trust that they are reporting their own experiences accurately.

After all, we cannot expect them to trust GLBTQ people's accounts of their own lives, after rejecting out of hand the religious experiences (not interpretation, but experience) of religious people. I would like to see those of us who stand up against any prejudice, to be so much more specific and accurate, careful and precise, that the lies of those who condemn homosexuality, or mock Judaism, or defame women, or vilify people of color - stand out in stark and ugly contrast.

Lastly, I'm sure that despite my best efforts, I have in the past, and will most likely in the future, slip and post a phrase or sentence that is more generalized than is really necessary or appropriate. For that reason, I have not linked to any specific blog or comment or essay that played the 'Christians this and Christians that' card. The point here is focus, as much as possible, on the processes, the harm, the ideas, and when truly necessary, the specific individuals, and do one's best to avoid criticizing too broadly.

After all, who wants to be just like this guy?