Individuals Vs. The Collective

[godlessgrrl]

So the thread over in News & CE about the doctor that refused to treat a little girl's ear infection because her mother had tattoos, coupled with the reaction over on CF, has got me thinking about something that's kind of been floating around on my mind a lot lately anyway. Which is the question of how to separate the actions of one member of a group from the collective as a whole.

 

It seems like I see a lot of threads on CF, for example, where someone brings up all the various atrocities one group or another has done over the years. It always devolves into a thinly-veiled pissing match about whose dogma is better, based largely on who has the lower body count. Nontheists always cite things like the Crusades, the Inquisition, the destruction of pagan religions, etc.; Xians always claim that atheistic governments in modern times have killed far more people than any religion ever did... it's all fairly predictable, and it alwayas puzzles me, because I seriously don't see how a lower body count makes any belief system a superior one. Great, so your religion killed only 20,000 people instead of 20 million; well those 20,000 are still dead, and what belief system doesn't have blood on its hands? A single death in the name of anything is too many.

 

What does kind of both amuse and puzzle me too is how eager people seem to be to dissassociate themselves with the bad behavior of other members of their group. (I see this mostly with Xians, but I think that's a matter of exposure; probably anybody in any group is prone to this.) I can't think of how many Xians I've seen who are so eager and willing to leap onto the excuse that the Crusaders "weren't really TrueChristians™", for instance - which, of course, carries with it the implication of "I'm better than the Crusaders because I wouldn't do what they did"... and then the further implication that somehow medieval Christianity wasn't really "real" Christianity. ("That's not Christianity" or "That's not what Xianity is supposed to be" are the phrases I've actually heard.)

 

Thing is, how does one successfully divorce an individual believer from their belief system as a whole? Should we even try to do so? If so, to what degree?

 

I think of FBX, for instance, who very clearly justified treating me as a second-class citizen by utilizing his religion to support his misogyny. I can look at him and think, wow, what a misogynist bastard, and also consider that his doing so probably had a lot to do with his own inadequacies as a human being. But then I look past him, and realize that he had the full support of his Xian buddies as well. And his church. And his Bible school friends. And his Bible. The verses about not being "unequally yoked", and all the various verses about the subjugation of women, went a long way towards supporting his asshattery.

 

He was one man, following a doctrine to which many people adhere: a religion, in other words. Tell me how that isn't Christianity. Tell me how we can really divorce a belief system as a whole - Christianity, for instance - from the people who created it, and who sustain it to this day: Christians.

 

Tell me how I can in any good conscience divorce a religious system from the believers who buy into it, sustain it, nurture it, believe in it - and who refuse to stand up and say something when its fellow members misbehave. I honestly don't know how to do that. I can say that one Christian doesn't comprise all of Christendom, but all of Christendom is sure as shit comprised of nothing but Christians; so I don't know how to regard it when the faith as a whole seems rife with moral bankruptcy. I mean maybe Jane Average Catholic wouldn't spend decades molesting children, but she adheres to a religion which makes it possible for corrupt men (priests) to do so.

 

Feh. I don't know where I'm actually going with this, I think it's just something tossing around in my head lately, so I figured I'd toss it out there for further consideration, and maybe I'll get some clarity if anybody has any input or ideas or whatever. Thanks for reading; I look forward to discussion, because I don't really know where I stand on this issue.

[currentchristian]

Terrific questions. I hope it is acceptable to you for a Xtian to offer an opinion.

 

It is natural to take one's encounter with one person belonging to a group not one's own and generalize about all members of that group. Ask any white person ever robbed by a young black man if they didn't thereafter feel at least a modicum of fear when a young black man approaches them on the street. I don't know if the same is true in a reverse situation in which a black person is robbed by a white person, since white people in the U.S. are the majority.

 

I think minority groups are more susceptible to this stereotyping than are those who belong to the majority. For example, a white man's crime remains the crime of that white man. A black man's crime "bleeds" over other black men. It's sad, and unfortunate, but true. When a heterosexual man sexually abuses a girl, his crime is his own. When a homosexual man sexually abuses a boy, his crime "bleeds" over other gay men.

 

What we must do, seems to me, is work hard to take each person at face value until they demonstrate the content of their character. No one should be trusted or distrusted because they are Xtian or ex-Xtian or atheist or theist or Republican or Democrat or whatever race or ethnicity. This is hard work. Human history proves that we are not very good at this getting along with the "other" business. But we must become better at it if we are to create the "beloved community" of the African-American, Christian, Baptist minister, named Martin Luther King Jr.

 

-CC in MA

[godlessgrrl]

Sure, I'm totally open to anybody answering.

 

Thanks for the reply thus far; I'm looking forward to others as well.

[Unknowing1]

In the examples you gave CC the belief systems are not in place. For example it is not the belief system of the African American population to commit a crime nor is it a belief system of the gay population to commit a sexual crime. For xtians there is a belief system that says certain things, for instance the belief system that says a woman is not equal to a man.

 

Would you use the same analogy for a member of the klu klux clan or neo-nazi party? Don't stereotype them even though they are members, partipate in the meetings and support hatred with their money as some of them are good people.

 

In my opinion if you belong to a group, attend their meetings, read their printed material, perform their rituals, believe what they say and support them you are part of that group and have the same mindset, otherwise why would you still associate with them?

[currentchristian]

Good points, Unknowing1.

 

To begin, let me establish that I am Xtian and that I believe in the absolute equality of the sexes. I look forward to President Clinton (the woman) beginning January 20, 2009. I dismiss Paul's words in support of inequality and embrace his words supporting equality: "In Christ there is neither male nore female..."

 

So there is not a monolithic Christian viewpoint or opinion or creed. Each Christian must be approached as an individual.

 

So, too, each whatever. I don't know anyone who ever belonged to the KKK or the Nazi Party, but certainly I would have great difficulty establishing rapport with such an individual if they were active members of these groups. But even in these cases, there are degrees of racism and hatred and I always hold out hope for redemption, a de-conversion as it were. (Senator Robert Byrd, ex-Klansman, is an ideal example of ex-Klansman turned good man.)

 

The more we allow an individual to be an individual and not a member of a group, the better. However, those who actively support a certain group do so because they, more or less, go along with the tenents of that group, and so one can begin to evaluate a person based on her/his compatriots.

 

-CC in MA

[Unknowing1]

I totally agree there are varying belief systems in place within Christianity. And I should have clarified and said "some" Christians, I apologize for not clearly stating what I was actually thinking. It's the "some" Christians that I have problems with. By "some" Christians I am referring to those that are of a fundamentalist mentality. Been around them, see how they work and have decided I really don't want much to do with them.

 

The example that Gwenmead stated is a classic example of how these folks operate in my opinion. They act one way as an individual and another way within their group. Unless the person "divorces" themselves from that group they will always have that belief system. That is who they socialize with, that is who does their counseling and their whole life is immersed in that group.

 

Again using Gwenmead's example how can you disassociate the individual from their belief? The individual treated her like a second class citizen because of their belief and their group's belief.

 

So to sum it all up I'm not saying all Christians but only certain denominations. In my opinion knowing what particular denomination someone belongs to speaks volumns in my opinion as to how they view the world, guilt by association? You betcha, otherwise if you don't follow those beliefs why are you a member? You can be Christian and belong to a liberal denomination that doesn't treat others as second class citizens.

[currentchristian]

Your point, Unknowing1, about "guilt by association" is well taken and has merit -- I don't know how much, maybe a lot, maybe little.

 

I was a member of only one religious denomination, the Assemblies of God, from age 16 to 21. At 21, I realized that an exclusivism such as membership is one teenie-weenie branch of one religion was not for me. I withdrew my membership (I can still see the pastor making a beeline to my pew when he learned of it so as to ascertain why. I don't remember what I told him?)

 

That was 21 years ago. I cannot imagine ever being a member of any denomination of any persuasion - liberal, moderate or conservative. Likewise with a political party -- would not join any of them. I like my independence.

 

-CC in MA