badstar

It's an old term...

If you've ever seen "The Wizard of Oz", there's a (here paraphrased) response by Auntie Em to the woman who would play the Wicked Witch: "I've waited years to say something to you, and now that I have the opportunity, as a Christian woman, I can't."

it's an old term, "Christian Values", and it's said 100 times over in Churches. It's not an insult per se, to other religions, it's an expectation of a Christian. So there's not any attempt to insult you or anyone else.

-- Rich

From:

purplelover13.livejournal.com

Not to start a war, but even if it's "an expectation of a Christian" why must it ONLY be a Christian that can have these values? I mean, they were around before Christianity, and will be around for many years to come, why must they be considered ONLY Christian? There are many religions that plug the same values, Judaism for one, and it predates Christianity, but they're still called Christian values...

From:

i'm not talking about in church, i'm referring to society at arge. i know it's not generally meant as an insult..but it's that subtle- and very often unintentional- all things good MUST be Christian. Many people really aren't aware of it. And really, therein lies a lot of the roblem, if it's not somethign that people are aware of, so it can't be addressed.

in the instance I am referring to, someone said something about how everyhtign would be so much better if the country would return to Christian Values. So I said "Okay, before I comment fursther, could you please explain to me what you mean when, in this instance you say "Christian Values"

(in this instance she was ONLY referring to the idea that sex must occur only in the context of mariage between a man and a woman. Now she was saying that this would cure the world of child pornography, which if you ask me is ridiculous)

To her credit before I had the chance to respond, she acknowledged that "Christian values" may not have been the best wording.but not before a few others had the opportunity to make comments aout me getting off topic in the forum and just never resisting the opportunity to grind an axe...it galed me even further that I had NEVER before brought up this particuar subject in ANY thread on the forum, and these people were some of the most frequent responders to some of my postings so they knew it.

From:

purplelover13.livejournal.com

I'm glad you posted this, it's been haunting me too.

Then again, I got called a Godless woman the other day because I dared speak out that I'm pagan...I piped up saying, I'm not Godless, I have plenty of Gods to worship...and Goddesses too! ;)

From:

Let me re-iterate, the term is an old one. It's not meant to be Only Christian. It comes off that way, but what do you expect from a nation that is some 60% Christian of some denomination or another? It's simply a dominant term, not one intended to be exclusive, but rather one that's been in discussion for years.

I find it generally assumed by those not of the Christian faith to assume the term is meant only Christians have those values, but it's not intended that way, at least not in modern parlance. It simply is a term - and while it can be confusing or ill-formed, it'll be in general terms for decades to come.

If you want a translation, just assume out the term "Christian Value" for "generally accepted socially beneficial belief of choice". But I wouldn't be overly sensitive on the term "Christian Value", it was here before you, and it'll be here long after we're all gone.

From:

seaya.livejournal.com

We have a right to not like the term.

You don't see how it's a big deal, because you are a member of the dominant culture.

But why should people accept the dominant culture's colonization of every action as belonging to them?

From:

It's not that I don't like the term, it's the context and the use. It's one thing for someone referring to a group to say "We are Christians, these are our values, they are X, Y and Z, they are good."

I's a completely different thing to say "Everyone must hold the Christian values of X, Y and Z, they are good."

Which is yet completey different from saying "A majority of the people in our country believe that the values of X, Y and Z are good."

(lets assume just for the purposes of this discussion that X, Y, and Z are things like dont steal, don't murder, don't crack gum in other people's ears..you know, stuff that most people realy WILL agree on.)

Now, I'm hardly one to go all PC, but there are some intances where I realy feel like yes...there is a need to remember certain things like there is a very large segment of the country that is not Christian, and to say that as a society we generally hold certain values like don't murder, be nice etc, but to refer to them solely as Christian is a gross oversight.

From:

60% still leaves a very large non-Christian segment and as I've said before...yes, certain values may be Christian, and may be referred to as such, but it is just not appropriate in circumstances such as when speaking of society as a whole because intentional or not, it completey ignores the rest of the population.

I said it on the aforementioned forum, i'll say it here...I will continue to do what I need to to do promote the understanding that no one religion has a monopoly on the good things...or the bad things.

From:

ranger-hotsauce.livejournal.com

Only 60%? I'd thought it was higher. By any chance, do you have a source for that number that I can check out?

From:

delphinastar.livejournal.com

"and it'll be here long after we're all gone."

Nothing personal, because I don't know you, but it won't be here after I've gone if I've got anythign to say about it!

WE are society, and only WE can change it's views....

my 2 cents (not soapboxing- honest!)

From:

...if all the things that you agreed were good, were commonly referred to as being held in monopoly by a single religion other than your own.

Because that "single religion" is the one that's the most vocal about it; it's the well-known one; the one where the people clearly let you know where they stand. Can you show me an organization that has the same size, reach, and solidarity of the AFA and/or The Moral Majority Coalition, but is based in something other than Christianity?

From:

ranger-hotsauce.livejournal.com

While size, reach, and solidarity are kind of hard to quantify, the NAACP and the ACLU do leap to mind. Then there's the AARP.

From:

But they don't lay claim to any specific religion- and besides, it's not like their values could be directly aligned with Christian ones; the NAACP and ACLU mission statements are, relative to Christianity, much more socio-politically oriented rather than morally focused, on top of that. I don't think they compare.

From:

ranger-hotsauce.livejournal.com

You said "show me an organization... based in something other than Christianity", so I did. And I certainly hope that you don't think that the Moral Majority isn't a politcally oriented organization!

From:

I guess, then, that I should've asked for a group (and/or religion) that adheres to the exact same values we've agreed to identify as "Christian values," yet is not itself Christian.

Specific to your example: do you think that the NAACP and ACLU accept/exemplify the very same values that actual Christians (and Christian organizations) do? And for the same reasons? I don't, which is the main reason why I said they don't compare.

From:

pagandenma.livejournal.com

Considering that it's the Religious Right and the Republicans that tend to use that phrase a lot, you have to wonder. Especially with all the scandal and nastiness surrounding both groups lately (see my post a few days back about how I believe Bush and his admin have violated several of the Ten Commandments, but I digress).

I don't honestly have a problem with the phrase "Christan values" because most of those values are things I believe in (love your neighbor, do unto others as you would have them do to you, help the poor and sick, care for each other, etc.)

My problem is the hypocrites who hijack the phrase and use it to promote their own warped political agendas and shove their theocratic ideals down non-Christian Americans' throats.

*Steps off the soapbox*

From:

My problem is the hypocrites who hijack the phrase and use it to promote their own warped political agendas and shove their theocratic ideals down non-Christian Americans' throats.

Non-Christians have done comparable things in return. Hypocrites and rotten apples abound on all sides.

From:

pagandenma.livejournal.com

Oh, certainly in history. You've got the Roman Pagans killing off Christians, the Jews killing off the Pagans in their neck of the woods, the Christians (especially in the Dark Ages and Middle Ages) killing off anyone who disagreed with them, Sunnis and Shi'ites offing each other, Muslims and Hindus murdering each other - the list marches on.

But the one exception I see in today's modern world is the NEO-Pagans. They seem to be the one group A) staying out of mixing politics and religion, B) shouting the loudest and working the hardest for religious freedom for everyone, and C) not caring that you don't agree with them, as long as you don't persecute them.

Makes me glad I'm a Druid, thank you very much. Doesn't make me better than anyone else, mind you, just not likely to persecute someone for their beliefs. More of a "thanks, but not interested" approach to other faiths, rather than wanting to wipe them out . . .

From:

Regarding points A), B), and C); ya got any examples of those? Last thing I remember reading in the news was this- an action which doesn't follow any of the tenets you listed.

From:

really, i think if any praying is going to be done before any sort of governmental meetings, it should be strictly between the individual and whatever entity/ies they're praying to. but if there must be prayers in that situation it should be non-specific in whose name is being prayed...and my reasoning for thinking this- even beyond holding one religion over others- is that in this setting, you're essentially praying on behalf of everyone in he room.

one thing that is not generally mentioned in news articles about that case is that this all started when Wynne was barred from speaking at a town council meeting because she stepped out of the room while the prayer was said- and she was TOLD by someone on the council that she should do this if she didn't want to be part of the prayer. She also wanted to be one of the people on the roster to periodically offer a prayer...but was barred because she was of a non-abrahamic religion. As it happened, she wanted to offer a non-sectarian prayer, but was barred even frm that.

From:

regarding your request for examples...

You don't see many news articles about Pagans trying to keep reliion out of politics altogether...and that's not to say the media is biased against us either, because you don't see much in the news about ANYONE trying to keep religion out of government altogether, with the glaring exception of the ACLU (and I've addressed my thoughts on them in a previous post)

You really do hear a LOT more about who's trying to drag one group or another down, or elevate one or another over everyone else, you hear very little about those who try to life EVERYONE up equally (I'm slowly in the process of trying to find examples of A,B & C...whether they be pagan, christian, whatever)

Out of A, B and C, I have to say I personally have seen a lot more of C than of A and B for the reasons I mentioned above. Now there are a number of pagans out there- and other than christianity, I have seen more examples of this within the pagan community than those of other religions- there are a number who DO seem to believe that "freedom of religion" is "freedom of religion as long as it's not christian"...they may not say this, but it's obvious though what they DO say and do that it's what they believe.

I'm really sorry to say that I have met a number of such people...and even sorrier that they are among the numbers of what I consider to be my spiritual community. I consider this to be more problematic than those who believe that "freedom of religion" means "freedom of christianity" because the "freedom of christianity" crowd at least tends to be very up front about it, instead of attempting to hide it.

From:

Kat...I have to disagree wth you there *. There are MANY of us who embrace those tennets, but it's certainly not universal. Now, we're not off killing anyone, and I don't see any trying to convert anyone (I've heard of a few isolated examples, but it's been a while) but there ARE those out there who take "freedom of religion" to mean "freedom of religion as long as it's not christian", whether they come right out and say it or not, and most don't.

From:

er, I meant i have to disagree *a little*

From:

delphinastar.livejournal.com

Oh! I SOOOOO understand where you're coming from! My family is like that! They can send me stuff about Jesus all the freaking time, but the one time I send an e-mail back saying "Please don't send me this, you know it's not what I belive, and I don't send you my stuff that I know you don't believe" then all of the syudden I'm the bad guy and I'm soapboxing! WTF??????

From:

I'm going to answer all in 1 post, if I may:

seaya: One, you assume I'm Christian, which I never stated explicitly. Though, your assumption is correct.

Secondly, your overgeneralizing - it's a turn of phrase, not intended to be exclusionary. You are taking it that way. I am not attempting to broaden this to a cultural format. Colonization - which is an over-broad term - is more accurately a natural association.

"From fuego: 60% still leaves a very large non-Christian segment and as I've said before...yes, certain values may be Christian, and may be referred to as such, but it is just not appropriate in circumstances such as when speaking of society as a whole because intentional or not, it completey ignores the rest of the population."

Again, you're assuming there's any intent to exclude. However, the perception of exclusion is yours. A Christian Value is simply, as was said above, one in which a Christian should espouse. it's used commonly by Christians. Now, I'll grant that it can come off as others don't have those values, but in this day and age, when many Christians have good relationships with Synagouges (such as the one I belong to), the term is used more to extoll the faithful to good deeds then it is aas an exclusionary term.

From aikinut: Only 60%? I'd thought it was higher. By any chance, do you have a source for that number that I can check out?

I did mis-speak slightly, in that regard:
According to the Pew Research council, there's an 82% Christian self-declared affiliation. A Cal-Berkeley study followd up with 63% Protestant of some kind, and the balance largely Roman Catholic. Ther are some Coptics, Greek Orthodox and other Eastern Rites Christians as well. I'll post the links if you want. I erroneously spoke for the Protestant, not the overall Christian. My error - I apologize.

From delphinastar: "and it'll be here long after we're all gone."
"Nothing personal, because I don't know you, but it won't be here after I've gone if I've got anythign to say about it! WE are society, and only WE can change it's views"

Turns of phrase last as long as the institutions that preserve them. Example: "An eye for an eye" was written by Hammurabi some 3200 years ago. We still use it,even though we don't (in most nations) literally take out each other's eyes as a means of retrbutive justice. The term "Christian values" will be around as long as the Christian Church is, and in common parlance. Christians will use it simply to identify themselves. They may even use it as a turn of phrase.

My best advice: don't get offended over easily. I'm usually careful wth my terms - I have many Pagan, Jewish, and Muslim friends. Not everyone is as careful - you can gently remind them that maybe the term is not appropo in mixed company. But expect it to be used, because of its common and easy association. But getting frustrated with a common phrase will only encourage its use. Better to approach offense with understanding and re-positioning it.

From:

you, Rich are one person.

and, I have never assumed an intent to excue. as you quoted me saying, "intentionally or not"...this leaves possibility for either, but assumes neither.

Now, I mean no offense to you, but plese stop repeating back to me what I have already said to begin with as if I had never even thought if it. I am not offended, I simply believe that in certain contexts, certain things should not be attributed to a single group when it is not in exclusive posession, no matter how common. No it won't change overnight, nor do I expect it to but I think it perfectly reasonable to expect that people learn that theyre not alone in this world, and we may have more in common than they know or care to admit.

And once again: my point..which I did a bad job of making clear, but had edited the post to better explain, was that of the assumption that i'm going to hop up on a soapbox, simply because I asked someone to clarify somethign that they said, as I have often had assumed in such situations.

From: