Christophobic Activists Actually Try to Blame Christians for Orlando Massacre

As I am sure you have heard, a Muslim extremist murdered dozens of people at an Orlando dance club after pledging his allegiance to ISIS on a 911 call.  What’s interesting to watch are the various activists around the internet actually trying to come up with convoluted reasons to blame Christians for this latest act of terror.  We truly are moving into an Orwellian world.

Yet there is an informative angle to their insane rhetoric.  As we know, anyone who attempts to link the massacre to Muslims or Islam is immediately accused of Islamophobia.  Yet the very same logic would also mean these activists seeking to link the massacre to Christians or Christianity are guilty of Christophobia.

Islamophobia is defined as “dislike of or prejudice against Islam or Muslims, especially as a political force.”

Thus, Christophobia shall be defined as “dislike of or prejudice against Christianity or Christians, especially as a political force.”

 

 

 

Advertisements
This entry was posted in bigotry, christophobia, orlando massacre, Uncategorized and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

47 Responses to Christophobic Activists Actually Try to Blame Christians for Orlando Massacre

  1. Allallt says:

    Can you point me in the direction of where people are trying to blame Christians?

  2. Allallt says:

    You’re making more out of those tweets than is there.

  3. Michael says:

    You’re making more out of those tweets than is there.

    I don’t think so. Clearly, such assertions are trying to link Christianity/Christians to the massacre. Now, we know that any attempt to link Islam/Muslims to the massacre is considered Islamophobia. Thus, the attempt to link Christianity/Christians to the massacre is Christophobia.

    Here’s what Mandela Barnes tweeted:

    How many people have been driven to hate and act violently towards the lgtb community by “conservative Christian” ideology?

    If he has tweeted this:

    How many people have been driven to hate and act violently towards the lgtb community by “Islamic” ideology?

    would it have been considered Islamophobia?

    Let me make my point very simple and it depends on only two questions:

    1. Is the activist trying to link the massacre to something?
    2. If that linkage connected the massacre to Islam, would it be considered Islamophobia?

    If the answer to both questions is “yes,” my point has been made.

  4. Allallt says:

    And I don’t think the answer can be made “yes” to either.
    Barnes is right; conservative Christianity (regardless of whether that’s the ‘correct’ Christianity) has fuelled homophobia.
    As a society, we don’t treat that homophobia as an intrinsic part of the faith.
    It’s a nuanced point that no one should take to Twitter to discuss. But perhaps he was simply trying to say that we should no more consider homophobia part of Islam as we do Christianity.

  5. Doug says:

    @Allallt,
    A question from someone who does not live in the USA, and, in fact, lives in one of the most gay-friendly cities in the world: what is the substance of “homophobia”? We see gays celebrated on television, we see them continually win lawsuits, we see their political and cultural clout rise enormously over the last decade or so, (with the power to redefine “marriage” to suit their taste, for goodness sake!) We see prominent gay politicians, entertainers, and newscasters. All this happens in a (at least nominally) “Christian” climate. It would seem to me (at a distance), that with the exception of fringe elements, the only substance to “homophobia” is resistance to “gay marriage”. Is there more?

  6. aa says:

    Define “homophobia.” Also, please explain to me why homosexuals are forbidden to marry in China (an officially atheistic country) and why opposition to homosexuality is at its highest in the West in Russia, 85% of whose populace, despite being 38% atheist or non-religious, opposes same-sex “marriage.”

    “Homophobia”–whatever that means–is not a part of Christianity, which simply condemns homosexual acts as immoral. Islam, on the other hand, mandates the death penalty for practicing homosexuals: A hadith depicts Muhammad saying: “If you find anyone doing as Lot’s people did, kill the one who does it, and the one to whom it is done.” (Abu Dawud 38:4447) And: “Stone the upper and the lower, stone them both.” (Ibn Majah 3:20:2562) From whence it follows that the only 10 countries in the world which penalize homosexuality with death are Muslim: Iran, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Yemen, Nigeria, Somalia, Afghanistan, Mauritania, Pakistan, Qatar. Coincidence? I don’t think so.

  7. TFBW says:

    Allallt said:

    And I don’t think the answer can be made “yes” to either.
    Barnes is right; conservative Christianity (regardless of whether that’s the ‘correct’ Christianity) has fuelled homophobia.

    Whether or not Barnes is right is irrelevant to the question at hand. What’s relevant is whether Barnes’ rhetorical question, linking “conservative Christian” ideology to hate and violence against LGBTs, is promoting a mental association between the actual massacre and Christianity.

    While Barnes isn’t making that link explicit, I don’t see how a reasonable person can deny that parallels are being drawn, with the intention of tainting Christianity by association. Do you really think that no such rhetorical effect is in evidence here?

  8. TFBW says:

    Allallt said:

    Can you point me in the direction of where people are trying to blame Christians?

    The most absurdly blatant and high-profile accusations were coming from Chase Strangio of the ACLU. See Kevin’s first link, above, or this, and be sure to follow the links into his Twitter feed.

  9. Ryan says:

    It’s interesting that wikipedia has an article titled “Islamophobia” but not one titled “Christophobia”; the closest is “Anti-Christian Sentiment”, which is a much softer expression. The “____phobia” term is designed to make it sound like a mental disease as a sort of ad hominem attack.

    The wikipedia article for “Islamophobia” reads just under the title: “Not to be confused with ‘Criticism of Islam'” with a redirect to a different article. One wonders if most liberals can distinguish between the two.

    I personally think the overuse of these pseudo-psychological terms is something later generations will look back on and laugh at. I am convinced that a hundred years from now people will look back in astonishment at the obsession we have of turning every thought or opinion into some sort of disease or phobia.

  10. Barnes is right; conservative Christianity (regardless of whether that’s the ‘correct’ Christianity) has fuelled homophobia.

    Reminds me of the quote from Edward Feser:

    “Prominent conservative politicians and churchmen have all essentially caved in on the substance of the dispute over “same-sex marriage.” None of them will publicly express the slightest moral disapproval of homosexual behavior, and few even bother anymore with social scientific arguments supporting the benefits of children being raised by both a mother and a father. Indeed, all of them are eager to express their deep respect for their fellow citizens who happen to be homosexual, vigorously to condemn “homophobia” and discrimination, etc. Some of them are even happy to affirm “same-sex marriage.” All they ask is that religious believers who on moral grounds disapprove of “same-sex marriage” not be forced to cooperate formally or materially with it. The circumstances where this might occur are, of course, very rare. No one is proposing that business owners might refuse to serve a customer simply because he or she happens to be homosexual. What is in view are merely cases where a business owner who objects to “same-sex marriage” would be forced to participate in it, say by providing a wedding cake or wedding invitations. Nor would his refusal to participate inconvenience anyone, since there are plenty of business owners who have no qualms about “same-sex marriage.”

    In short, what conservatives are proposing is not only extremely modest, but is being defended in the name of their opponents’ own principles, the most liberal of principles, viz. the Jeffersonian principle that it is tyrannical to force someone to act against his conscience, and the Rawlsian principle that a pluralistic society should strive as far as possible to respect and keep a just peace between citizens committed to radically different moral, philosophical and religious views.

    And for taking this paradigmatically liberal position, they are widely and shrilly denounced by liberals as… “bigots,” “haters,” “intolerant,” comparable to the Ku Klux Klan and the upholders of Jim Crow.”

    http://edwardfeser.blogspot.co.uk/2015/04/the-two-faces-of-tolerance.html

  11. Michael says:

    And I don’t think the answer can be made “yes” to either.

    It’s hard to see how it can be anything other than yes. Barnes, tweeting in response to the Orlando massacre, cites “enablers in churches” and asks, “How many people have been driven to hate and act violently towards the lgtb community by “conservative Christian” ideology?” Question #1: Is the activist trying to link the massacre to something? Answer: Yes, he links it to “enablers in the church” and “conservative Christian ideology.”

    To answer “No,” you’d have to make the case that Barnes’ tweets had nothing whatsoever to do with the Orlando massacre. They were completely unrelated. Until you make that case, my answer stands.

    Barnes is right; conservative Christianity (regardless of whether that’s the ‘correct’ Christianity) has fuelled homophobia.

    The truth of this claim is irrelevant. The relevant point is that linkage is being made. A radical Islamist commits a heinous act of terror and Barnes decides it is time to attack church goers and conservative Christian ideology. If someone linking the act of terror to radical Islam is guilty of Islamophobia, then Barnes is guilty of Christophobia.

  12. Billy Squibs says:

    Allallt, replace the subject of each tweet with someone or something dear to your heart then tell me that these tweets (and the wider sentiment they represent) are not attempting to lay the blame at the feet of your beloved.

    Either condemn or accept the obvious message. Don’t try to pretend to us that there are deep nuances behind these sentiments (sentiments rather than arguments) and we happen to be missing them.

  13. Dhay says:

    And there’s a Quillette article by Henry Rambow, who (like eg AtheistMax, KIA and John Loftus) used to be one of these extreme Christian fundamentalist types. He seems to have deconverted entirely, like a switched-off light, because he has followed the beaten track of becoming an outspoken enemy of Christianity, even in its moderate forms. Like Sam Harris, he now thinks that moderate Christianity, or any moderate religion, is a breeding ground for murderous extremist fundamentalists. Rambow should know, because he came close to being one of them himself; as he puts it, “But then I looked in the mirror.”

    The forces that engendered in Cherif [the younger of the Boston bombers] a will to destroy human life are not unique to radical Islam. Even now, Steven Anderson, pastor of the Faithful Word Baptist Church in Phoenix, Arizona, preaches that all homosexuals should be put to death, and there are many Christians who share his attitude — a fact that should give us pause as we come to terms with the recent massacre in Orlando, Florida.

    http://quillette.com/2016/06/14/the-josiah-effect-how-moderate-religion-fuels-fundamentalism/

    Ah yes, moderate religious people — in this case Muslims, but Rambow is generalising to pointedly include Christianity too — are to blame for the Orlando massacre. Rambow’s solution seems to be to moan at the existence of this dangerous reservoir of moderate Christians and to want to ban Bibles:

    Bibles are available in every home and on the back of every church pew. And all it takes for a fundamentalist to be born is for one lost soul to pick up a copy and find a powerful sense of purpose in a literal interpretation of the text. The same is true of the Koran.

    I disagree: the problem is not moderate Christians, it’s not Bibles (or even Korans); the problem is the loopy who is not happy unless he is at one extreme or the other, or both consecutively; the problem stares back at Rambow from his mirror.

  14. Allallt says:

    Link? Yes. Blame? No.

  15. Kevin says:

    Why even bother linking the two if the point isn’t using the opportunity to attack Christianity? And if someone does that, then they obviously believe Christianity was at least partly responsible. That is blame.

  16. TFBW says:

    Splitting hairs to save your theory, Allallt.

  17. Michael says:

    Link? Yes. Blame? No.

    Fine. Let’s go back to question #1: “1. Is the activist trying to link the massacre to something?”

    So we can see the answer is “yes” (I needed clarification because you originally said “And I don’t think the answer can be made “yes” to either.”)

    Let’s move on to the second question: “2. If that linkage connected the massacre to Islam, would it be considered Islamophobia?”

    If a Republican tweeted, “How many people have been driven to hate and act violently towards the lgtb community by “Islamic” ideology,” would anyone consider that Islamophobia?

    We can even make the hypothetical even more analogous. Imagine the Orlando shooter was a hardcore fundamentalist Christian and the same day of the shooting, a Republican politician tweeted about the “enablers in Mosques” and also wrote, “”How many people have been driven to hate and act violently towards the lgtb community by “Islamic” ideology,” I think many would argue this politician was trying to raise his Islamophobic points to get attention off that shooter and his connection to the Christian religion.

    Over the next few months, I think we’ll see a connection between those who shout “Islamophobia” and those who wallow in Christophobia.

  18. Allallt says:

    Well, enjoy making a hobby out of your professional hypersensitivity.

  19. TFBW says:

    An excellent comeback when someone has just pointed out how you’ve contradicted yourself.

  20. Allallt says:

    @Doug
    I’m not in the USA, either. But denying services to homosexuals is homophobia. Blocking marriage for homosexuals is homophobia. Calling homosexuality an abomination is homophobia. You can Google violence against homosexuals for bigoted (as opposed to personal) reasons, so I’m not really sure why you’re bothering to ask.

    @TFBW (and everyone else, really)
    I’m not splitting hairs. The Tweets appear to me to be pointing focus on a certain hypocrisy. There are homophobic sects of Christianity, and there is Christian-on-gay violence in America.
    I’m not Barnes and I can’t pretend to know his motives (and neither can you!), but there are reasonable assumptions that can be made about why he thought those Tweets were appropriate.
    He did not blame Christians or Christianity. He merely pointed out that homophobia is not unique to Islam, and it is considered by many as intrinsic to Christianity.
    In a climate of worry about Muslim, he pointed out that ‘Muslims’ is not the right thing to be worried about.

    I haven’t been shown to be contradicting myself. I’m just not accepting the hypersensitive 2-dimensional interpretation of some Tweets.

    That includes Chase Strangio’s comments, by the way, which only seem to be saying homophobia is a larger problem than just Islam, and the socially conservative right has been a part of that problem.

    @Michael
    People may consider it Islamophobic to ask how many people have been driven to homophobia by Islam. Those people, just like you, are wrong.

    @Kevin
    Maybe his intention was to point out that Islam is not the problem. The problem is a particular mindset–that of unquestionable judgement against a certain group of people–completely independent of religion. And, by pointing that the Christianity has the exact same fringe, he’s shone a light on that. It was clumsy and 140 characters doesn’t allow any nuance or explanation, so he picked his media badly.
    But everyone is jumping to conclusions here.

    @Billy Squibs
    I accept the message as read. I don’t accept the interpretations of it being made here.

  21. TFBW says:

    Allallt said:

    I haven’t been shown to be contradicting myself.

    Earlier: deny link. Later: accept link but deny blame. Now: deny contradiction.

    Waste o’ time.

  22. Allallt says:

    What link am I supposed to have denied?

  23. TFBW says:

    Michael asked two questions, one of which was, “Is the activist trying to link the massacre to something?” You responded: “I don’t think the answer can be made ‘yes’ to either.” Thus, although you chose a roundabout way of saying it, your answer was “no”. Then, later, you made a comment, the totality of which was, “Link? Yes. Blame? No.” Now, unless your mention of “link” in this context referred to something entirely off topic, which it does not seem to do, then you’ve contradicted your earlier statement.

    You needed this to be explained to you?

  24. Doug says:

    @Allallt,

    But denying services to homosexuals is homophobia. Blocking marriage for homosexuals is homophobia. Calling homosexuality an abomination is homophobia. You can Google violence against homosexuals for bigoted (as opposed to personal) reasons, so I’m not really sure why you’re bothering to ask.

    Googled “violence against homosexuals”, and the connection between any such violence and Christianity is tenuous, at best.
    Preferring a millenia-old definition of “marriage” to a decades-old one is only “homophobia” if you really, really want it to be (clearly, you do!) — and “denying services” derives from that, clearly.
    …Leaving you with “calling homosexuality an abomination”. Do you even know what the word means?

  25. Allallt says:

    @TFBW
    Michael is using the words ‘link’ and ‘blame’ interchangeably. I’d prefer to say Barnes was simply drawing a comparative narrative, but the comments thread is so devoid of any understanding of actually taking people’s comments at face value or engaging with nuance that it’s simply not worth it.
    This isn’t like Trump, where Trump is steeping his comments in innuendo to suggest Obama is a terrorist sympathiser. People have to burn a lot of fuel to make Barnes’ Tweet ‘blaming Christians’.

    @Doug
    “A man that lies with another man should be stoned.” I really shouldn’t have to quote Bible passages at you while you claim ignorance.
    And find me a centuries old definition of marriage that explicitly says marriage should only be between a man and a woman. So far as I can tell, it’s merely an assumption.
    It took me less than 30 seconds to find this on Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2n7vSPwhSU
    So, are you denying Christian-right homophobia?

  26. TFBW says:

    Allallt, you are engaging in a great deal of creative interpretation in order to accommodate your projections. Clearly that’s only a problem when other people do it, though.

  27. Doug says:

    @Allallt,
    Your knowledge of the Bible is from r/atheism.
    Millenia-old “assumptions” carry more weight than decades-old “definitions”.
    You could find Fred Phelps in less than 30s, if you tried.
    Waste of time.

  28. Allallt says:

    @Doug
    Haha, okay. No such thing as progress then, eh?
    I don’t visit Reddit. Although, is that your idea of telling me I’m wrong?

    You’re right, though; waste of time.

  29. Talon says:

    Allallt, criticizing homosexual behavior, marriage is not homophobic. -Phobia implies an irrational fear or hatred, you haven’t established that opposition to these things are necessarily irrational nor hateful. Offering rational argument that homosexual marriage can’t be morally, culturally or legally equivalent to heterosexual marriage is not hateful. Loud disapproval does not equal hatred or fear.

    Christians are not encouraged to throw homosexuals off buildings, stone them to death or w/e as a sort of mercy killing, some sects of Islam are, even some “moderate” Muslims are. The way a Christian is obligated to treat homosexuals is very different from how an ISIL terrorist will, so mentioning “links” between them is either intellectually dishonest or ignorant and glosses over Christian emphasis on forgiveness and compassion. Christ was pretty clear on NOT executing people for sexual sins.

    Michael’s point is sound, the people “linking” conservative Christians with the Orlando shooting are displaying a willful disregard for the truth, are unaware of what various conservatives actually believe or are indulging in vulgar stereotyping all as a sort of “virtue signalling”, all of which could be considered Christophobic.

  30. Allallt says:

    @Talon
    To clarify, Leviticus 20:13 “If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them” doesn’t express any irrational hatred? Okay. So, does that count as rational hatred? I mean, what angle are you meddling here?
    The thing is, we’re not even here for Bible study to see what the best theological answer is for what God commanded. We’re not here to see if Jesus overturned that or not. The discussion is whether there are socially conservative Christians (the ‘Christian right’) that have views that appear influenced by that homophobic verse. I’ve shared a link that shows this is the case. Doug mentioned Phelps (and so the Westboro Baptists, by association) as another example of this being the case. You can search Google and YouTube for ‘homophobic sermon’ or ‘pastor’ and get plenty of evidence of homophobic rhetoric.
    So, your Bible study is deflection.
    Also, actually, clinging to an archaic assumption about marriage to exclude marriage for gays is homophobia. It might not conform to the definition you get when you figure it out directly from the root words, and I understand that frustration; imagine how many times I’m stuck in the loop of defining atheism by using the root words. But, is there another word you would suggest for describing when someone has their rights abrogated, truncated or limited due to their sexuality? Because the word we tend to you is homophobia.

    Barnes is right. The Christian right has played a role in spreading and perpetuating homophobic rhetoric.

    Michael and I disagree on whether Barnes was blaming Christianity for the Orlando shooting. Michael thinks that “linking” the homophobia of the Christian right with the homophobic Orlando shooting (by context only) is the same as blaming the Christian right. If that’s the kind of ridiculous leaps of reasoning Michael is going to make, we clearly disagree about whether the Tweets in question do ‘link’ them.

    I think it’s an important point to note that homophobia is a problem that transcends religion. Yes, globally, it is a bigger problem within Islam; homophobia is concentrated in Islam. But, in America, it’s a bigger problem among Christians (because there are so many more of them).

    I, for the record, don’t think it Islamophobia to point out the issues with the socially conservative messages of Islam. Nor do I think it’s Christophobic to point out that Christianity also has a homophobia problem. And, in this context, it’s worth reminding Christians that Christianity has a homophobia problem before Christians starting pointing the finger at Islam.

    I think if you took the time to notice that point, you’d realise the problem is with insular communities and individuals, not entire global populations defined by religions.

  31. Doug says:

    @Allallt,

    actually, clinging to an archaic assumption about marriage to exclude marriage for gays is homophobia

    Nonsense. Making up “rights” by redefining “marriage” is fun and all, but it won’t make those who call you on it bigoted in the least. I get that “marriage” (when it works) appears to be a wonderful thing. And I get that everyone wants in on that action. But it isn’t abrogating anyone’s “right” to tell them that they can’t marry their sister, or their cat. And it isn’t abrogating anyone’s “right” to tell gays that what they have might very well work for them, but if they want to call it “marriage”, they need to supply another word to replace the one they’ve co-opted.

  32. TFBW says:

    Allallt said:

    Barnes is right. The Christian right has played a role in spreading and perpetuating homophobic rhetoric.

    And, as we’ve pointed out multiple times already, that’s irrelevant to the points being made here even if it’s perfectly, completely, and utterly true. But hey, it’s not like we can expect you to engage the actual points being made, except to flatly deny everything, always, without budging a single micron, ever, even if it means asserting that Chase Strangio’s stream of explicit Christian-blaming and Muslim-defending in relation to the Orlando shooting isn’t Christophobic. It’s pretty much the age-old bigot’s defence against accusations of bigotry: it ain’t bigotry if all those things you say are true!

  33. Michael says:

    People may consider it Islamophobic to ask how many people have been driven to homophobia by Islam. Those people, just like you, are wrong.

    You are missing the point. “Those people” lose all credibility IF they also happen to be expressing Christophobia out the other side of their mouth. If someone is going to condemn others of “Islamophobia,” they better not be expressing Christophobia. Otherwise, it is clear they are not standing on some moral princple.

    I’m not Barnes and I can’t pretend to know his motives (and neither can you!), but there are reasonable assumptions that can be made about why he thought those Tweets were appropriate. He did not blame Christians or Christianity. He merely pointed out that homophobia is not unique to Islam, and it is considered by many as intrinsic to Christianity. In a climate of worry about Muslim, he pointed out that ‘Muslims’ is not the right thing to be worried about.

    I see. Instead of being worried about radical Muslims who show up at Christmas parties and dance halls to gun down dozens of innocent people in bold blood, we instead need to be worried about some baker who doesn’t want to bake cakes for a gay wedding. Er, you are not helping him.

    But denying services to homosexuals is homophobia. Blocking marriage for homosexuals is homophobia. Calling homosexuality an abomination is homophobia.

    Okay, I’m curious. Where does this end? Let’s say there is a guy who refuses to have sex with someone only because that someone is a man. Is that homophobia?

  34. Michael says:

    Michael and I disagree on whether Barnes was blaming Christianity for the Orlando shooting. Michael thinks that “linking” the homophobia of the Christian right with the homophobic Orlando shooting (by context only) is the same as blaming the Christian right. If that’s the kind of ridiculous leaps of reasoning Michael is going to make, we clearly disagree about whether the Tweets in question do ‘link’ them.

    Barnes is a politician, not a philosopher. I hope you are not trying to read between his lines in hope of finding some intellectually sophisticated point. We have agreed that he linked them. Now, we should ask why the politician linked them. I say he thinks Christians share in the blame. That nicely explains why, and fits with the claims of the various other activists who have been trying to make the same or similar links. But you deny that. So what was the purpose of the linkage? What was his point?

  35. TFBW says:

    Michael asked Allallt:

    Okay, I’m curious. Where does this end?

    Ooh! Ooh! I know this one! It ends precisely where he wants it to end on any given day, because it’s all 100% pure, unadulterated opinion masquerading as obvious, indisputable moral fact. Am I right?

    Yes, teach. Sorry, teach. I’ll let the person you were asking answer now.

  36. “Islamophobia is defined as “dislike of or prejudice against Islam or Muslims, especially as a political force.”

    Thus, Christophobia shall be defined as “dislike of or prejudice against Christianity or Christians, especially as a political force.””

    I reject the premise and therefore the conclusion.
    Oxford defines phobia as:
    “Extreme or irrational fear or dislike of a specified thing or group”

    Fear of crossing bridges, fear of water, fear of spiders etc. become phobias when a person is driven to panic at the mere thought, or driven to extreme acts of avoidance while nearly all others simply go about their lives with little concern because the situation in question is demonstrably an extremely low risk.

    I reject the cited definition of Islamophobia as much too vague, mild and lacking the key elements of “extreme” or “irrational” to warrant the use of the term “phobia”.

    It is tiresome to be labeled an Islamophobe, as I so often am, when in fact my concerns about Islam are neither extreme nor irrational. The only thing that saves me emotionally is that I am such a racist cis-gendered privileged white male shitlord that my sociopathic nature means I simply don’t have the empathy to care about having these idiotic epithets pointlessly and continually hurled at me.

    So, kindly refrain from adding yet another ill-defined and pointless epithet to our popular lexicon because I don’t know if I am sufficiently sociopathic to continue to brush them aside. Being called a Christophobe might just be the trigger that makes me finally crack.

  37. Michael says:

    So, kindly refrain from adding yet another ill-defined and pointless epithet to our popular lexicon because I don’t know if I am sufficiently sociopathic to continue to brush them aside. Being called a Christophobe might just be the trigger that makes me finally crack.

    It’s a question of balance. I won’t use the term “Christophobia” to describe New Atheists, for example. I have been critiquing them for four years without making that accusation. Things are different with the SJAs, who routinely like to use the word “Islamophobia.” There is no reason to think they alone deserve the privilege of using such terminology when they themselves demonstrate the same behavior they decry – just with a different religion.

  38. TFBW says:

    Hey, Allallt, are you going to answer Michael, or just quietly bow out because the going has gotten tough on this thread? Many of our atheist contributors simply hit and run, but you show up often enough that this looks like an attempt to sneak out the back door.

  39. Michael “It’s a question of balance. I won’t use the term “Christophobia” to describe New Atheists, for example.”
    Well, I suppose that is something, at least it won’t be hurled at me by you, but you may be stooping to the level of an SJW with respect to baseless labels. Though, I suppose you consider it fighting fire with fire I still prefer fighting fire with a fire extinguisher.

  40. TFBW says:

    I still prefer fighting fire with a fire extinguisher.

    Sounds great. Let us know if you find one that works.

  41. Michael says:

    Michael “It’s a question of balance. I won’t use the term “Christophobia” to describe New Atheists, for example.”
    Well, I suppose that is something, at least it won’t be hurled at me by you, but you may be stooping to the level of an SJW with respect to baseless labels. Though, I suppose you consider it fighting fire with fire I still prefer fighting fire with a fire extinguisher.

    Can’t say it better than TFBW did – “Sounds great. Let us know if you find one that works.”

    The Reason Rally Coalition does not tolerate harassment of or by participants in any form. Prohibited conduct may include—but is not limited to—harassment related to gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance, body size, race, age, religion, sexual images in public spaces (not related to convention sessions or materials), deliberate intimidation, stalking, harassing photography or recording, sustained disruption of talks or other events, inappropriate physical contact, and unwelcome sexual attention.

    The Reason Rally Coalition recognizes that mockery of religion occurred at Reason Rally 2012, and we welcome such discussion. However, the harassment of individuals for their religious beliefs will not be tolerated. Racist, sexist, homophobic, or transphobic conduct will not be tolerated.

    Failure to abide by our code of conduct will result in ejection from the event without refund at the sole discretion of organizers.

    The Reason Rally Coalition understands that human interaction can be complex and confusing. Please give each other the benefit of explaining behavior you find offensive or unwelcome. However, participants asked to stop any prohibited conduct are expected to comply immediately.

    Sounds like the SJWs took the Reason Rally out of the hands of the New Atheists to me.

  42. Allallt says:

    @TFBW
    Are you serious? Do you really mean to imply that Michael’s question–“Where does this end?”, with the addendum asking whether not having sex with a gay man would be considered homophobic–is a question you think really challenges my position and is serious enough to require an answer?
    I mean, I know you are dense; I’ve been here on and off for a couple of years now. That this is just stupid.

    Consider this question as a rebuttal: in the name of equality and tolerance, does anyone assume the right to sleep with whom ever they desire? And is rejection considered intolerance?

    I mean, seriously. What possible interpretation of my position could lead anyone to think that question is even mildly relevant or challenging.

    And then goading me into returning so that you could–what–continue the conversation as above, with deflection and nonsense? And attempting to challenge me because I’ve been busy and without internet connection for a couple of days… nice to know I have mature and considered interlocutors here.

  43. TFBW says:

    Methinks the Allallt doth protest too much.

    But sure, assert your superiority in lieu of engaging the points raised. That’s true to form.

  44. Doug says:

    @Allallt,
    Well, yes, as a matter of fact: the question is serious enough to require an answer and it does indeed challenge your position. Otherwise, we might legitimately entertain TFBW’s

    It ends precisely where he wants it to end on any given day, because it’s all 100% pure, unadulterated opinion masquerading as obvious, indisputable moral fact.

  45. Michael says:

    I mean, seriously. What possible interpretation of my position could lead anyone to think that question is even mildly relevant or challenging.

    Your “position” is simply the regurgitation of standard SJW talking points:

    But denying services to homosexuals is homophobia. Blocking marriage for homosexuals is homophobia. Calling homosexuality an abomination is homophobia.

    Since you have not defined “homophobia” and have offered no way to objectively detect when it exists, it led me to wonder if we could reasonably add to your list. As a fan of the New Atheists, I understand you are motivated to focus such accusations on the evil Christians, but I am not restricted by your agenda.

    So I asked, “Where does this end? Let’s say there is a guy who refuses to have sex with someone only because that someone is a man. Is that homophobia?”

    Look, however you define “homophobia,” it would need to have some deep emotional aspect to it (see Stardusty’s nice description of phobia above).
    So let’s list out three accusations of homophobia.

    1. A photographer refuses to work a gay wedding because it is a gay wedding. This is homophobia.
    2. Someone thinks the government should only recognize a union between a man and a woman as a marriage. This is homophobia.
    3. Someone refuses to have sex with someone else only because they are the same sex. This is homophobia.

    Now, if you ask me, #1 and #2 could very well be rooted in someone’s moral code, political philosophy, or religious conviction such that emotion plays little or no role. #3 seems to be different, rooted more in an emotional response. So it would seem if #1 and #2 are examples of homophobia, then a fortiori, #3 should be classified likewise.

    And we can add to this.

    If a man says he is grossed out by seeing two other men kissing, this is considered homophobia by many. Thus, if a man is grossed out by the idea of himself being kissed by another man, why isn’t this homophobia too?

    If a man says he doesn’t want to have sex with an attractive woman because, and only because, she is black, most would consider that racism. Thus, if a man says he doesn’t want to have sex with an attractive man because, and only because, he is a man, why isn’t this homophobia?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s