Hacker News Reader

Comment by tyingq | Hacker News Reader

As US citizen, the Christian version of sharia law would be worse than what I have today, yes.

Just look at what Christian groups are doing in disaster zones this very minute: feeding, sheltering and clothing the needy. Terrible!

That's not "the christian version of sharia law". Think instead of something like the Spanish Inquisition.

Also, it's not like the christians have a monopoly on disaster relief, nor is it like christians are always helpful in a disaster. Remember the megachurch that had to be socially shamed into opening its doors for victims of Harvey?

My point is that Christian people catch a lot of undeserved grief on HN for really no reason. I see a lot of people doing decent things in the name of Christianity, I don't see a push for "Christian Sharia Law" anywhere at all.

And Joel Osteen is a tool and a fraud.

I don't remember saying that Christians have a monopoly on disaster relief either.

I see milder forms of Christian Sharia all over the place. Just off the top of my head, birth control, abortion, drugs, assisted suicide, alcohol, and marriage are legally regulated based on Christian morality (not necessarily what the Bible says, but what self-professed Christians claim their religion to say) to various degrees.

Christians in general are fine, but a certain subset of American Christians is hell-bent on forcing their religion on the rest of us, and they have a lot of power.

Don't forget widespread genital mutiliation of men in the US that's accepted as the most normal thing in the world - circumcision is straight from Abrahamic religions.

There are very real and very significant health benefits to circumcision. Educate yourself about it. [0]

http://www.webmd.com/sexual-conditions/guide/circumcision

I am fully aware of those. Despite all of them, cutting a part of a child's penis is barbaric and once again - I'm shocked that it's treated as this completely normal thing in the US.

One could say the same thing about injecting chemical and biological agents into newborn children. Circumcision is no less a lifesaving health issue than vaccination. Are you also shocked that people kill and eat animals? Are you also shocked about the biology of sex? Maybe you should examine what makes you "shocked" about medical treatments that bolster the health and wellness of human beings.

I'm a bit confused (honestly). Your link shows benefits, but nothing involving life and death. Or rather: if that's all, and religious reasons are not considered, circumcision is not at all a 'proportionate response'.

To be clear, my perspective is from a society where circumcision is not the norm. I'd say the norm here is not to remove parts of the body unless there's very good reason to do so. Wisdom death probably come closest. But circumcision for health reasons would be akin to removing the appendix in every newborn.

Again, I'm honestly curious. I assumed circumcision (for reasons other than religion) was a fringe position in these circles.

It's not a fringe position. There's plenty of research out there, you can do the footwork yourself [0]. It's not "akin to removing the appendix in every newborn" because it's a minor procedure. Certainly less invasive and dangerous than removing an appendix or wisdom teeth. The research just doesn't support the pearl-clutching that goes on about circumcision. If you want to expose your children to that kind of risk, then don't have your boys circumcised.

[0] https://www.elsevier.com/connect/circumcision-benefits-far-o...

If the procedure had never been heard of before and we were deciding today whether it would be a good idea to do this at birth, we probably wouldn’t even consider it.

> And Joel Osteen is a tool and a fraud.

And this makes him "not a christian"? This is a 'no true Scotsman' argument. If you're going to provide a litany of 'good things', then you shouldn't gloss over the 'bad things' either. Osteen isn't the only minister out there that's fleecing his flock.

And what about the largest christian denomination, a powerful organisation which has a long history of covering up pedophiles in its ranks? Using its political clout to prevent government investigations? And even ignoring the pedophile issue, the standard doctrine of that denomination is making people feel guilty about their actions. 'Original Sin' is one of the most disgusting core components of any major religion; that you owe an unpayable debt from even before you take your first breath, and that you are sinful and should feel guilty about it if you don't constantly try to absolve that debt throughout your life.

And as mikeash says, there's plenty of christian morality forced into our laws. Here in Australia, we've just wasted $120M on a stupid national plebiscite on same-sex marriage (that's non-binding!) because it was forced through by conservative christian powerbrokers - despite long and consistent public support around 70% on the issue. There have only been two plebiscites before here, once for conscription in WWI, and once for the national anthem in the 70s, both of which were nation-defining things. The only reason why this is happening for same-sex marriage is christian morality trying to further force its way into our laws.

Yes, christians do good. Good christians do good. Good people do good. Bad christians do bad. The mafia is a classic example; plenty religious, plenty bad. Fact of the matter is that the proportion of christians helping out in those disaster zones is a miniscule proportion of total christians - if you're going to dismiss the Osteens of the world as being non-representative, why should we also not dismiss christian efforts in disaster zones?

If a minister teaches practices and beliefs that are in opposition to the scripture that defines Christianity, is he Christian? This is clearly not a True Scotsman scenario. I can't call myself Catholic if I don't follow the pope. I can't call myself Muslim if I don't respect the prophet - and so forth. Joel Osteen teaches a philosophy that is far outside of the mainstream of Christianity.

Clearly there are people of all groups who are good/bad etc. The reason I entered into the conversation was to address the bigoted nature of above poster's assessment of what Christian people would do in a hypothetical nuclear war scenario. I suggest that you look at what Christian groups are doing in Texas right now as an example.

Before repeating the myth of the Spanish inquisition, you should look to the English, German and French inquisitions. They was far worse!

And, there is many sects with very hard and strict interpretations of the biblie, so yes... there is many christian versions of sharia law. If, tell to any one that live on Switzerland when John Calvin grab the power. Tell it to Michael Servetus...

Yeah, that "love your neighbor as yourself" would be brutal.

If only that were the actual dogma they followed.

They do, problem is they're masochists.

The most vocal, notice I don't say majority, only seem to pay that ideal the barest minimum of lip service. The most vocal only want to love thy neighbor if the neighbor is Christian, heterosexual, and maybe even only if they are the same race.

Those appear to be the most vocal. You and I know they aren't the majority, but perception matters a lot. I have absolutely no problem with Christians, though I don't share their faith. I'm just aware that the most vocal people professing to be Christians are everything from White Nationalists to the Westboro Baptist Church.

We can probably agree that they aren't the best Christians to represent the faith, but they certainly are the most vocal and are the public face that many people see. For better or worse, you end up with virtual caricatures being the representatives.

The most vocal, notice I don't say majority, only seem to pay that ideal the barest minimum of lip service. The most vocal only want to help the worker if the worker is Unionized, woke, and maybe even only if they are the right minority.

Those appear to be the most vocal. You and I know they aren't the majority, but perception matters a lot. I have absolutely no problem with democrats/labor, though I don't share their politics. I'm just aware that the most vocal people professing to be on the left are everything from Antifa to Black Lives Matter.

We can probably agree that they aren't the best people to represent the left, but they certainly are the most vocal and are the public face that many people see. For better or worse, you end up with virtual caricatures being the representatives.

Do you see how that passage totally misrepresents the whole left and casts it in a bad light? It borders on concern trolling. Can somebody come up with a better name for this than 'the bigotry of hand wringing?' If not, that's what I'm going with.

You only see Antifa or Westboro as representative of the groups they pervert if you only consume news from people who want to make you emotional and then show you ads.

No, I see more than that but that's because I take the time to seek it out. It's not up to me to determine public perception, I am - quite literally - only making the observation.

In fact, I'm not sure why you'd think I'm trolling? I live in a very rural area where attending church is mostly the default, and not the exception. I know the majority of Christians aren't like WBC and that they aren't White Nationalists. However, it's the WBC and White Nationalists that people see assembling in public and standing behind the banner of the cross.

I'm not sure how you'd think I see only that when I was really careful to point out that I see much more than that. I see the lady pastor who comes by with a pan of lasagna whenever she hears of trouble. I see people who make sure not one person here is hungry, homeless, or more alone than they want to be. I see them stop to shovel the snow of a grumpy old man who is distinctly not very Christian in his behavior. I see them practicing what they preach.

At the same time, I see the online comments from the people who believe the WBC actually represents all Christians, or at least the majority. I see a sibling comment who pointed out just that, a comment about them needing to actually adhere to their professed doctrine.

I'm not sure why you'd attack me, the messenger. It's not like I control public perception. It's not like I made the sibling comment. Perhaps you're reading things into my comment that weren't stated or intended? Perhaps you're making broad assumptions about me that aren't based on anything I said but are based on your own biases?

As I said, I see the Christians and they are usually wonderful people. Unfortunately, many people don't and you end up with the loudest being considered representatives of the whole. You end up with things like the sibling comment. The sibling comment is a fine example of exactly what I mean, and is wonderfully timely.

You can feel free to attack me, or you can acknowledge that there is a PR problem and try to resolve it. You can acknowledge that someone already even likened it to Sharia law and wonder why that is. Or, of course, you can attack the guy who points it out and accuse them of trolling. That's fine, I don't mind, but it's not very productive or helpful.

Edit: Sorry you're being downvoted, but I had nothing to do with that either. Maybe they are as baffled as I am as to why you'd attack me when I did nothing more than make an observation - an observation handily backed up by some of the comments in this very thread.

I don't see this as concern trolling when these sort of negative issues are widely cited in surveys on un-churched Americans. If I were a pastor wanting to reach out to future generations, I'd see this sort of thing as a problem.

Example from Barna, an evangelical survey and research group: https://www.barna.com/research/five-trends-among-the-unchurc...

"Unchurched Americans" have been a growing trend for quite some time. Nearly half of millenials are "post-Christian" in this survey from a few years back.

In this study, half of the post-Christians could not identify a single favorable impact of the Christian community.

The top things people complained about regarding American churches were violence in the name of Christ, the position on gay marriage, sexual abuse scandals, and involvement in politics.

Perhaps more tellingly, in another survey (http://www.christianpost.com/news/how-do-unchurched-american...), a full 72 percent of the people interviewed said they think the church is full of hypocrites.

Note that "unchurched" does not mean "not Christian", but I think there is plenty of evidence though that says a large portion of Americans believe, at minimum, that the institution of American Christianity is fundamentally broken.

I don't think the clickbait-ization of news is the entire story here either. "Nones" have been growing rapidly since the 1990s.

"Love your enemies. Do good to those who hate you." Even more brutal.

This was more of a commentary on the political polarization we face where belief in the message of a chosen political party is accepted in the same way as a religious belief. Essentially there are people who worship their political affiliation. In the way religious beliefs are not often questioned neither are political beliefs. This is why we call them beliefs.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com