"All Christians aren't like that!"

[xenologer]

There's something I understand better now than I used to back when I was self-identifying as a theist. I, too, was really upset that atheists were so prejudiced and bigoted and just pigeonholed any religious people they knew and assumed that if you aren't an atheist, you're an enemy. Or something.

I understand marginalization and privilege a little better now, though. Only some of it is from beginning to identify as an atheist. A lot of it's stuff I've heard from LGBT people and people of color and feminists and just... y'know, people who have experience with this stuff. Here's what I've learned about generalizing about the members (or affiliates) of organizations that hate me (or you, or someone else, or whoever).

It's hard sometimes, when someone walks up wearing the badge and uniform of one's oppressors, to assume that they don't want to be associated with the other people wearing it. It's hard for me (for example) to see someone who self-identifies as Catholic and not see an ally of the homophobia, misogyny, and just general callousness that characterizes that organization. They may not personally hate women or gays or child rape victims, but they're comfortable affiliating with an organization that plainly does, and I have to wonder at that rate whether they're true allies.

Sadly, that type of Christianity is still setting the tone in a lot of the country. While I'm supportive of the efforts of other Christians to clean up their image, I no longer feel like I should suffer at the hands of the Christian cultural system and simultaneously do their PR for them. When more Christians are like Quakers, I'll talk about them like more of them are Quakers.

I get that it's got to suck having people running around acting a fool who are using teachings from the same book as you are to do some terrible things to innocent people. It always sucks to feel like someone else has enough control over your reputation to screw with it by being bigots and just generally showing their whole ass to the world.

That's the thing, though, about continuing to wear the badge and uniform of a group that--for a lot of people--has done them nothing but personal and very tangible harm. Depending on how badly they've been hurt and for how long and how much hope they have left, they might just assume that you're an ally to the people who hurt them. They're not assuming this because they're bigoted, or bullies, or intolerant. They're assuming it because they're tired of giving chances to people who put on that uniform and then getting kicked in the face for it. So... they stop taking the risk.

I'm not quite there yet, but I've seen people get there, and it's hard for me to begrudge them. It's not hate. It's hurt, and it's weariness, and they're right. They should never have had to always be the one giving out chance after chance after chance to people who didn't take it. It's hard exhausting work, and the people I know who've given up on trying to find common ground with Christians? That's why.

So this is why I've stopped saying, "Not all straight/cis/white/etc. people are like that! Please only talk about your painful experiences in a way that protects my feelings!" and it's why I think it'd be great if Christians did, too.

Comments

[caitsith]

Those things are...not at all equivalent. You can decide not to be a Catholic, or be openly critical of what the institution of the Catholic Church does. (And there is such a thing as Liberation Theology). You can't decide not to be white, or straight, or cisgendered, and there's no organization to criticize, dissociate yourself from, stage a coup to take over, or propose a different ideology for.

It's also sloppy thinking to lump all Christians together. They are distinct denominations with distinct histories, policies and approaches. The Society of Friends has a long and storied history of fighting oppression; they were supporting the Underground Railroad during slavery. Don't say "Christian" when you really mean those other guys; it makes the groups who really are, really and truly, doing the work of tolerance and civil rights more invisible. It legitimizes the right-wingers claim to being the "real" Christians.

On the other hand, no, it's never helpful to exclaim "Not all $GROUP are like that!" We know.

[cleverthylacine]

I have less trouble with Catholics because I think a lot of them are there because the magic doesn't work for them in other churches. I guess that's probably hard to understand, but I know two or three people who are really into their candles and saints and Virgin Mary and going to a liberal Christian church that's all talk and no magic doesn't work for them well.

I empathise with this because a lot of liberal synagogues are like that and I sometimes feel like I have a choice of putting up with Chabad's abominable politics to get all the kabbalistic stuff and the mysteries and the chanting and all (which are satisfying to my soul) or going to a really great synagogue where I agree with all their politics and causes but holy fuck, if I wanted to sit around and have a Unitarian meeting I would go to the Unitarian church :)

Actually my own personal thing is that if someone says they're Catholic I watch to see whether it's the magic or the politics they like; if someone says they're methodist or UCC or whatever I'm also less worried, but when they say they're "Christian. Just Christian. Non denominational." then I really worry because those are usually the scary ones. Also, there are scary denominations, like Church of God Anderson Indiana, but if you know what those are you at least know you don't have to WAIT to decide not to trust them ;-)

[elf]

(found through network)

The biggest problem, in my mind, with the "not all Christians are like that!" (replace Christians with white people, men, straight, cis, etc. as necessary) isn't that it's often the case of a Christian (or whatever) demanding that their feelings be considered too. They do, in fact, have a right to have their feelings considered, as much as anyone else's.

The problem is that the claim is insulting. It's implying that the people complaining have not noticed that the majority of Christians, of white people, of straight cis males, and so on, are decent people who have maybe some failings but overall, don't want to hurt anyone and would love for everyone on the planet to be happy and healthy.

When I bitch about Christians, I kinda take it for granted that the audience knows a whole lot of decent Christians, and that they know I know a whole lot of decent Christians. That I am either using handwavy shorthand for "the icky Christians," which we all acknowledge as existing even if we don't agree on which ones those are, or that I'm talking about a systemic unrecognized problem in almost all Christian communities, which they'd work to fix if they understood it was there at all.

I may get upset at how much they don't acknowledge it even when it's pointed out directly, but I don't get upset that they haven't fixed a problem they can't perceive.

The harping on "all Christians aren't like that!" implies that non-Christians who grumble about Christian behavior are stupid and unobservant and horrifically bigoted--instead of allowing that they know perfectly well that the majority aren't like that, and they kinda assumed their audience would understand which subset of Christians was actually the target of the rant.

When the Creepy Guy at the bus stop winks at me and tries to pinch my ass, and I angrily mutter "men!" to the other passengers, I'm not inviting a lecture about how most men don't do that. I'm saying, that's a man thing (no woman at a bus stop has ever tried to pinch my ass), and I wish the men who did that, wouldn't. When I bitch about Christians, I expect the readers to know I don't mean "all Christians do this" but "the Christians who do this, get away with it because they're Christians."