The other day, fingerlakeswanderer, aka Lorraine Berry, posted a quote by Stephen Fry:
“If I had a large amount of money I should found a hospital for those whose grip upon the world is so tenuous that they can be severely offended by words and phrases yet remain all unoffended by the injustice, violence, and oppression that howls daily.”
I agreed with this quote wholeheartedly. I believe that there is a difference between things that matter (like poverty or misogyny) and trivial things like ‘who said what to whom and when.’ I have always been an advocate for the oppressed, a representative for the injured, and a speaker for the forlorn. And frankly, I, like Fry, think that people are too sensitive about word choice, underlying motivations, and suspect intentions of people that they could mostly care less about.
However, lately I find myself in the same boat as these over-sensitive types. It really “bugs” me when friends, family or even mere acquaintances make statements that I believe are hateful about things that matter to me, like liberal politics and/or my religion (Catholicism) as I think my beliefs represent an empathetic and loving perspective on life. I’m not proud of admitting this, as I hoped that my skin was thicker and that I had a more mature overall perspective about people’s opinions of me or my beliefs. However, apparently, I’m just as thin skinned as the people that Fry talks about.
This brings me to the questions I wanted to ask:
When is a comment too much?
When is an opinion disrespectful?
Where do I (or we) draw the line?
My thinking is that criticism is fair if it is very specific: I can criticize an individual for shooting an abortion doctor. However, criticizing an entire church from whence the person came is too much and too broad. Isn’t an all out pronouncement against a religion or a person of a certain religion not a prejudice like any other?
Maybe it is because I come from within a religious philosophy. But, to me: A person’s interpretation of a religion or philosophy may or may not have anything to do with the dogma of that religion or philosophy. Even if it does, in religions like mine (Catholicism) there are always a million people with a million different interpretations of that same text or issue.
What do you think?
_________
For the life of me I couldn't post a comment to my own blog. Maybe because it is too long? (HA!) Here it is:
Thank you for your comments, even or especially the hostile ones, even though they surprised me, because they were enlightening. The best spin I can put on these hostile commenters is that I think your passion for justice and your knowledge of *only* the "official face of" the Catholic Church explains your responses.However, the superficiality of your understanding is upsetting, at the very least. Yet, arguing with you is not going to change your mind. So, I am hoping that information and education might alter your viewpoint or at least expand it a bit. So, here is some information that will (or can-- if you read it) show you "my Catholic Church," the work it inspires, and the people in it that I love. Don't expect to find total congruence in this material with your belief system. If that were the criteria for membership in a group, I wouldn't be a US Citizen, a Democrat, or a Wife. I choose to join anyway because of great hope in evolution. Make of that what you will.
--John Dear is a Jesuit priest and peace activist. http://ncronline.org/blogs/on-the-road-to-peace
--Dr. Clarissa Pinkola Estes poet, writer, psychoanalyst, feminist and author of my favorite book (Women who run with the Wolves): http://ncronline.org/users/dr-clarissa-pinkola-est%C3%A9s
--Numerous Jesuits and their social justice initiatives (on domestic poverty, peace, Africa, including the Congo): http://www.jesuit.org:2080/SocialJustice/default.aspx By the way, my law school was a Jesuit institution.
--Michael Lowy writes on the incompatibility of Catholicism and Capitalism: http://www.iea.usp.br/english/articles/lowycatholicethics.pdf
--Congressman Cao from Louisiana, the only Republican to vote for Obama’s Health Care Reform Bill, explains how his identity as a Jesuit and an Ignatian inform his decision making: http://www.jesuit.org/index.php/2009/11/08/anjcaovote/
-- Sister Helen Prejean, Louisiana nun and anti-capital punishment activist: http://www.prejean.org/
I also want you to understand the real diversity of ideas in the church and how the soul of the church inspires the following work, despite official church teachings:
Catholics for Choice: http://www.catholicsforchoice.org/about/international/EuropeanAdvisoryGroup.asp
Dignity USA (LGBT group): http://www.dignityusa.org/
Roman Catholic Women Priests: http://www.romancatholicwomenpriests.org/
Donna Freitas, writer of the Stubborn Catholic, for the Washington Post: http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/stubborn_catholic/
Sister of Mercy nun Margaret McBride (the nun on the ethics committee at a hospital that gave her consent to an abortion that got her excommunicated): http://ncronline.org/news/justice/nun-excommunicated-allowing-abortion
___
I'm sure you're wondering how a liberal like me can or would join a church such as this one. Well... I have experimented with Buddhism, Protestantism, Unitarian Universalism, Hinduism, a combination of East and West in the form of the Self Realization Fellowship, and an interest in Judaism (the religion of my husband's family). I find myself connected to compassionate, loving people of all faiths, and of no faith (Greg).But, I can't be an atheist or anti-theist because... just because of my attachment to the mystical (See, this Commonweal Magazine article written about the esoteric, to which I am connected, versus the exoteric, to which I am not: http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/dry-bones). It's a weakness.
I am not quite like Lainey, as I am not staying in a religion or community in which I grew up because of some historical affiliation -- although I liked her explanations of the dimensions of Catholicism the best. I'm unlike Yuselof because I don't think that religious figures should be exempt from criticism or scrutiny (Lorraine). However, I think that criticism should be very narrowly addressed to a certain person and their beliefs and actions so that opinions don't become a prejudice, which is what I think has happened to people that describe themselves as Catholic.
On my blog, Lorraine, I view the people that stop by to comment as people coming into my living room. In our home, we do not allow bigoted comments or people spewing hateful vitriol of any kind. My answer to that is to speak up and out against what that person has said (not against that person necessarily). I think that that is my duty on my blog just as it is in my living room. I do think that your orientation, as a teacher, may keep you from doing that, which I understand, to a point. I would hope that if you speak about the Catholic Church’s position on something, you would make clear that you are speaking about the institution or the Pope, and not about the faithful. Chances are that the laity have a differing point of view and are actually out working with their social justice committee to help the very side you’re on.
And, I’ve been thinking about the comment that people wouldn’t talk about Jews or Scientologists like they do about Catholics, and I think that’s wrong. I’ve heard scathing things about both and any other religious or minority group (pick one: Mormons, Muslims, Blacks). We are a country divided. Yes, I would hope to hear more respectful discussions amongst religious peoples and non religious peoples.—the kind where people ask questions and try to come together. Thank you Firestorm McGrew.
Drew-Silla—these identity-nappers are a symptom of what is wrong with OS lately. Don’t worry about it.
I guess that’s it for now.
Peace and God Bless.
Denese
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
emma peel 2
SnippytheGrammarDog
Greg Correll
wendyo
Dr. Susanne Freeborn
Sally Swift
Salon.com
Comments
To some extent, that's just the way it is. Go to some religious sites and you will see the exact opposite bias.
However, I know and respect a number of Catholics and don't feel that their religion is inherently corrupt or evil, in spite of very real institutional failures.
I say this as someone that isn't part of any organized religion. It isn't the posts per se that I tend to find offensive. The posts tend to be on topic and based on news or facts.
It is the offhand comments that are annoying to me. Like priests are a club of perverts, etc. There were institutional failings, but most priests are very dedicated individuals. The ones I have known anyway.
So, it isn't just over sensitivity. But I wish you luck.
i think i am thick-skinned enough to handle most criticism.
growing up in a large family, i got kinda used to it.
any respect i get starts with self respect.
dishing it out:
however, i do cut some slack on the weakest ones, no need to remove any foundation they may have been able to build up.
That is how I feel about Catholicism and women.
Which is all well and good except when the catholic church itself is the one that is committing the wrongs.
I'd personally like to be able to just say the Pope, but it's the entire church. Extensively funding the anti-gay vote in Maine, refusing to feed the hungry in DC because of a Council decision supporting gay marriage and support, tacitly at very least, of the anti-gay actions in Africa, just to name a few of MANY.
Don't even get me started on how your church demeans and tries to dominate women!
So I guess I've got to say, "Keep you church off MY back and I'll keep off the church's back". Till that happens, they are deserving of every harsh thing said about them.
It's so complex.
For a-theists (not anti-), the issue is compouned: we don't believe there is a being to be anti- to.
So we are a-theists.
Religion an faith gets preferential deferential treatment. Constitutionally it is not supposed to be this way. And it politicized religion, implicitly.
Look at the skyline of all of DC. Hundreds of steeples. Same in every city (mosques, synagogues, temples & steeples). Opportunities abound for worship.
But nonbelievers feel our right to assert our disbelief and it is abridged and compromised at every turn. We have to sue to keep the public domain fair.
Christians are not oppressed.
And in the last 15 years Christians have escalated the politicization of faith, radically, leaving compassionate believers like you and compassionate nonbelievers like me on abattlefield we did not choose and don't want.
Conclusion? I don't have one. I offer this as a perspective, in this, the 'neutral' free marketplace of ideas, OS.
I welcome the plain and honest engagement you offer here. Namaste.
I have a deep relation to something that must be like God and from that knowledge I never generalize, I HOPE, about anyone's religion or fairly stated positions.
But like you, Denese, I have a very hard time with cruel comments that are rife all over the internet. I feel so strongly against such rudeness that I really wish all the 'talkbacks' were just shut down. Name any subject: There will be haters to rise up and spew.
I feel mighty lucky that OS has a collegial air, with most being more than respectful of others. That said, a thick skin is kinda mandatory online. More than off, you agree? Rated
No, Wendy, what she got was two disagreeing opinions. Those are not flames." Wouldn't be a sad, boring world if everyone agreed on everything? Or worse yet, that people tried to keep other people from voicing their opinions?
BTW, "You're an idiot for saying that" would be a flame. See the difference?
As to taking and giving offense, that's more personal for me, and, probly for this reason, it also depends upon what kind of day I'm having. I'll usually jump in to defend someone I think is getting slammed unfairly. I tend to get snarky if the slam is aimed directly or even indirectly at me - for any reason, if I think it's intentional. I'm more apt to wait until swung at before I jump in. If someone takes offense at something I write or say, it's almost always inadvertent on my part. I'm prone to needle and try to make light of some things, and sometimes these efforts don't work. I'm often amazed when somebody responds angrily to something I've said or written, and will usually steer clear of them from then on. The tomato/tomahto thing to the nth power.
I will speak out against particular decisions made by religious leaders that I see as outrageous. The same as if they are politicians, doctors, etc. I don't think because someone issues a statement under the guise of religion, that makes them untouchable.
Having said that, I try like hell not to bash in general any religion or belief system, because as I frequently tell my students, generalities are not good scholarship. There are always going to be exceptions to that.
When people come on to a blog post that I have made, where I'm talking about two separate churches that both encourage women to have children until their bodies are exhausted, and use what I've written to bash religion in general, are you asking me to delete the comments?
People have been fighting wars over religious beliefs for thousands of years. I most certainly don't want to engage in that with you--I consider you a friend.
But, I have to tell you, as a non-believer in this country, I, too, feel under attack. The religious right (and I'm not lumping all Catholics in that category) is out to return us into Calvin's Geneva or some form of it, and Calvin burned those who disagreed with him. (Before anyone asks, let's start with Michael Servetus)
Denese--do you think it is okay to call out specific members of religious bodies for their behaviour? I'm trying to figure out where the line is, not because I'm trying to challenge you, but because I genuinely want to know what I might write that would upset you. It matters to me.
And Wendy O, this comment is not me "flaming" anyone, it is me respectfully stating my opinion. Get a grip please.
I don't tend to get upset by casual male bashing, simply because I think it isn't particularly mean spirited, and a lot of women who are negative about men in general tend to be generous toward specific males.
I can see how Jews and gays still feel vulnerable, given their minority status and recent persecution. And for that reason, I can go along with the need for sensitivity when generalizing about them as groups.
Lainey and Greenheron made particularly good points, in my opinion, regarding over generalizing from the examples.
The point of this comment is to simply elaborate on my earlier comment that the Catholic Church is fair game for any negative comment on OS, while other groups are treated with considerable sensitivity as a matter of course.
I don't think it is fair, but I don't think it will change. Since the issues tend to be in the comments, perhaps you need to just blow off general bashing in comments or comments entirely in some posts.
I think the problem is when a concept or idea or belief is associated with a community or group of people or institution. Once you go from mocking an idea to mocking a group, then it can feel very hurtful and unfair to members of that group.
As far as contraception, considering the birth rates in European Catholic countries, women have either given up sex or given up listening to the Pope.
The point being that reproduction isn't at the core of Catholic belief. They have a position and a lot of Catholic women ignore it. In contrast, the Klan was an organization that was fundamentally based on racial oppression. With an organization like that, the idea is virtually indistinguishable from the group.
For a long time I had trouble calling myself Catholic b/c of all the reasons people here discuss, but I have gradually and gratefully adopted my husband's pragmatism. I was raised Catholic, my family is mostly Catholic, and our social and educational lives are entangled with Catholicism to some degree: I have simply decided to call myself a cultural Catholic (much as many people call themselves Jews, even if they don't practice or believe) and ignore people who think I'm hypocritical. I have my reasons for living the way I do--chief among them preserving the relationships that are important to me--and I can't expect others to understand them. I don't mind any of the comments here because I know that we each have our own perspectives and pasts. Ablonde's comment re the Nazis is interesting but ultimately inapplicable b/c the Nazis didn't really do anything good while the Catholics here (in the USA) have provided the boots on the ground for the urban poor during much of the last century and a half. Every big American city owes the Catholics for their work in the trenches, feeding the hungry, clothing the poor, providing shelter for the homeless.
All that being said, the Catholic Church is an idiot. We all know why--blah, blah, blah. I have not found anything on this or Lorraine's blog offensive. Perhaps I'm sympathetic to the anti-Catholic views because I see those serious flaws in the Church. And let's face it: any religious ideology is a closed system, which is antithetical to critical thinking. Some of us live inexplicably inconsistent lives. Oh well. I don't really have to explain myself to anyone, nor do you. If you find that any of this criticism bothers you, then perhaps it cuts a bit close to the bone as they say. Maybe it is unearthing some of your own doubts.
(I may also have very thick skin because I'm a teacher who has spent many, many hours in middle and high school classrooms where targeting teachers is sport.)
But the truth is that I love the engagement. I appreciate knowing how everyone feels and I think it's a sign of respect that we are trusted with their opinions. I completely acknowledge the distinction between a disagreement and a flame, where getting a rise out of someone by attacking them personally is the goal.
When I offer an opinion here on OS, I occasionally forget that everyone isn't as thick-skinned as I am, and I can seem harsh. I honestly intend just to say my piece, and sometimes I forget to include the civilities that can soften the blow of disagreement. The nicest thing in the world is when that person comes back with grace and offers me a generous explanation or opportunity for further conversation sans defensiveness. I try really, really hard not to be defensive. But I don't always succeed. We're all human that way. :)
This is the problem, from an outsider's (or at least my) perspective. Tell this, say this, say that you are pro-choice, pro-gay-marriage, anti-mysoginy to The Pope, and you will be summarily excommunicated. You either follow ALL of the dogma and philosophy, as, say, The Pope does, in the case of Catholicism, or you should not identify with that religion.
Now, if you want to talk about "spirituality" and your relationship with the "God" of your understanding, that's a whole other kettle of fish, but when you join a religion, just as when you join any other social group, there are rules and guidelines that you must follow, or be expelled for "not being worthy" ~snark~ And considering that religion, ALL religion, is based on the concept of "you're not worthy of my company" the fact that there is so much so-called diversity within a religion is simply baffling to me
Out of politeness, I'd just steer the conversation around to "Oprah" and "Battlefield Earth".
HAHAHAHAHA! Good one! :-D
I think the key here is to what extent the church condones or excuses the act of the individual. When I criticise the Catholic church as a whole for the sexual abuse committed by priests, it is not because I think all Catholics are pedophiles. But there is clear evidence that the church leadership covered up these crimes, and millions of Catholics excuse the church even when the evidence for abuse is all over the place. We hear of communities who receive disgraced clergy with applause, while the victims of abuse are shunned. That makes them worthy of broad criticism in my view.
In short: Show me that you distance yourself from the actions or attitudes which I criticise, and I will exempt you from criticism. But passive silence is not enough.
I have to say I'm not buying this. I think your intention (how you meant it) gives words a great deal of power. If the intention was not to offend or hurt, but someone decided to receive it that way anyway - is that my problem? Well, yes, it they go all nuts on my ass, it's sort of my problem but then I have to decide how to respond back. My nature is to remain calm in the face of a storm, and continue to leave the door open for discussion, and a heart to heart so it can be aired and the relationship either repaired, or closed - either way there is a meeting of the minds and not just a bunch of ruffled feathers, spewing crazy talk, and hate mongering from the offended party. Unfortunately, if the person who is acting out being 'offended' by something I said instead of talking it out in a reasonable conversation and opinion exchange ... how long does it remain 'my problem'?
You said: "If the intention was not to offend or hurt, but someone decided to receive it that way anyway - is that my problem?"
Yes, it is your problem, because clearly you said or did something that DID offend, without consulting the offended party. This is the nature of, and the flaw in "poliitical correctness". The assumption (and we all know about assuming) that, because one person or group finds something offensive, or not offensive, that everyone will. When you generalize and begin to believe that everyone who is disabled, for example, is comfortable with the term "physically challenged" or "differently abled", you lack the knowledge or understanding of how an individual sees those terms. So, if you say something to someone, or about someone, I'd think it's a pretty darn good idea to know how the "receiver" of the information feels before making your statements.
@ Deven, very insightful and who in the world could ever toss the first stone?
@ Lainey - well thought out comment, personal and pragmatic. The last line was a great sum up.
I have to admit that in my life, with all the religious camps and stuff I went to as a high schooler (and had a blast), what I remember is Mrs. Schnaubel telling me Billie Gee was going to hell because she was Muslim. News reports seem to work like a depressive's mind, where only the betrayals and exclamation points stick. :(
It's not healthy reporting and makes me avoid the blow by blow news, because there is so little celebration of life, only highlights of death and destruction.
It is a Sacred Task and a Holy Obligation (and an act of loving kindness as well) to upset the demonic, dogmatic applecarts of willfully ignorant stooges- it is, however, not polite in the least.
Tweaking True Believers tends to be dangerous sport as liars and frauds can be quite volatile and violent when exposed or cornered.
It would, therefore, be prudent and practical to be prepared to practice proper and appropriate self-defense techniques.
Thanks again for all of your comments. This issue has been on my mind for awhile....
I, if we knew each other, would pour you a cup of coffee, sit your ass down and talk to you about the dangers of doing the exact same thing that you are suggesting other people are doing. Just say'in...
For example, well before I read your latest comment, I read the posting of a delightful young lady that impressed me immensely. It discussed St. Paul, Christianity and gay marriage. ( I would suggest everyone read it, BTW.)
http://open.salon.com/blog/pseudo_octopus/2010/05/23/jesus_
satan_paul_and_gay_marriage/comment
I found the posting VERY enlightening. I'm pretty anti-religious, BUT I found that when information is presented to me without "proselytizing" or instant defensiveness it can be discussed civilly and may even change my thinking.
Feel free to delete my earlier comment. I stand by it but would hate to be offensive.
I hope for change for the Church and for Fry.
Denese
It's painful to even go there. Secular organizations really need the good, amazing, wonderful people that subscribe so passionately to the Catholic Creed. They would do just as much good for the world... but without all the horrible things that hurt humanity so much. HORRIBLE.
I love so many Catholics. It's the Catholic Church I abhor.
Why should I worry I'm offending. Why should I hold my tongue because faith is given such a holy pass in this world.
Would you hold your tongue if Jews said that blacks were not worthy? Would you tip toe around it? Would you "watch" your typing tongue if Public Schools decided that girls couldn't attend? How would you feel if they did that, Denese? How would you feel if you typed:
"Public Schools are now Offensive"
and a teacher cried that you spoke out against an organization that he loved and honored?
What would you say in response?
Denese
People who stalk others... or pick at everything another person says. Or paste every post in to a copyscape type checker to be sure it's not copied from somewhere.
And I can't help but think what a difference those people could make in the world do if they spent all that time doing something constructive. But that's not where their heads are. C'est la vie.
When is a comment too much?
I don't know. Speaking only for me, I believe what we say speaks loudly about who we are, and that puts a lot of "comments" into perspective for me.
When is an opinion disrespectful?
When the person saying it is being disrespectful - and they usually know when they are.
Where do I (or we) draw the line?
We all have our own internal rules for when and where we draw the line. Some people like to argue about those, too. lol
P.S. The reason your comment didn't post was because of the urls. OS often doesn't post a comment if it has urls in it.
As for the reaction to the spew, my tactic can be summarized as "not playing the game." Most trolls and haters are not looking for a thoughtful discussion. They are looking for someone to act as their foil, the straight man in their routine. It doesn't matter what part of their argument you're reacting to, or what you even say in response. They have a response for everything. You are never going to change their mind. You are never going to make them back down. You will not get them to stop. As long as they can keep the back-and-forth going, and spew their hate, they are happy. And they have won.
The way to deal with these kinds of people is to not play the game. Call things by their right names. "Rant all you want, buddy, but I'm not interested in playing the game. I'll be ignoring you because I have better things to do than entertain your bullshit or dignify it with a response."
You're not going to change them. Don't try. You win the game when you refuse to play. (Believe me, it's actually the best way to frustrate the hell out of them!)
"And in the last 15 years Christians have escalated the politicization of faith, radically, leaving compassionate believers like you and compassionate nonbelievers like me on abattlefield we did not choose and don't want.
Conclusion? I don't have one. I offer this as a perspective, in this, the 'neutral' free marketplace of ideas, OS."
These are my thoughts exactly and an amen to that.
The problem is that I just don't think that is true. I think it's a small number (and sect) of Christians getting all of the negative attention. As a person interested in religions, I check out these things. And my powers of discernment tell me that the folks whom you are addressing are the religious fundamentalists of the Protestant persuasion. However, regardless, everyone is being painted with the same brush, I think, particularly by people that are non-religious, which makes sense.: the less we know, the more we generalize.
This is a problem with all topics these days I think from politics to religion. How much time and effort can we all invest into investigating something... in order not to generalize?
It's so hard to communicate. I'm sure I've been guilty of this double standard. As I said, I think we all need to be as narrow as possible in describing what we are "against."
I do react viscerally to angry comments. Even though I can't *hear* their voices, I can *feel* them, if you know what I mean. I think it's the hatred that bothers me, particularly from liberals, who purport to hold compassion for people with little power or righteous purposes. There is no compassion, for me, in generalized hatred, no matter what reason is behind it.
I guess we can all talk about something neutral, like... what?.... all I can think of is the color of our fingernails or the maintenance of our lawns, both of which I think are fraught with controversy in this crowd. LOL.