A friend wanted to buy a book for me. That book was about faith – the case for it. I told her I would pick it from her rather than have her mail it to me, which would cost more, and asked if she was free for tea. I was doing something else and missed her question back to me if it was okay for someone else to join in. I didn’t reply, having missed it until after she went to bed (it was late) and somewhere along the line it came to this; I quote verbatim, with emphasis on the important bit:
“hey i hope u understand that it’s against christian protocol for me to be going out with non-christian guys (though u probably feel that this is really narrow-minded) and i dun usually do dates in the first place”
I have no qualm with the second part. But I take issue with the first:
Divinely-inspired apartheid doesn’t make it any less wrong.
She was only half-right about me, too. I’m not a non-christian – I’m an ex-christian. It seems there will be a long way to go for believers to earn the trust of unbelievers – whatever “the others” are termed. Let alone win back the trust of an ex-believer.
This blog might or might not go down in infernal flames. But I repeat – divinely-inspired apartheid doesn’t make it any less wrong. Christian God or not.
The debate is open to the floor.
The right to moderate comments that do not address the issue at hand is reserved.
To believers/fundamentalists – think before you flame, because if you do – be prepared for consequences. This is not a threat – this is a promise. It is fine if you can reason your way with logic.
7 responses so far ↓
JS // Monday, December 22, 2008 at 1:10 pm |
I agree. And it does not matter if religion (note that this includes other forms of belief) is a human invention or a divine heritage.
To segregate or ostracize people based on their religious orientation is fundamentally wrong.
If we were to look at this argument from the perspective of, say, Christianity, then the very practice of discrimination can be viewed as an act against God. Because did God not sacrifice his only begotten son to save mankind from their own undoing? Is his love for man not universal, selfless and unconditional?
So to think any less of others who have yet to be “enlightened” (in your religious context) is to denounce everything that (your) God stands for.
Even if your protocols disagree, I would also prefer to imagine an omnipotent being who can call forth a deluge on a whim to be somewhat magnanimous, forgiving and accepting. If he is, however, nepotistic, petty and totalitarian then I must exclaim, for the sake of my human brethren, “God help us all”.
Ponder Stibbons // Sunday, January 18, 2009 at 1:06 am |
Well, it’s not really apartheid if she doesn’t impose it on others. If she prevents only herself from going out with non-Christians, then it’s her loss. It may not be rational, but I wouldn’t say it’s wrong.
Ambrose // Monday, January 19, 2009 at 5:41 am |
I’ll refute that on 2 counts – first, both don’t end up going out together even if one wanted to, so the deal is that there is still segregation. Second, it is already conceptually segregation, hence the idea that it is apartheid, at least conceptually.
hopefully a non-offensive christian POV? // Sunday, May 17, 2009 at 7:06 am |
I don’t think it’s apartheid as much as it is having distinct preferences for one’s romantic partner. For instance, a 170cm girl may refuse to date guys shorter than she is, a Republican may refuse to date Democrats, or a guy living in Singapore may refuse to date someone who’s moving to the US, just because he doesn’t handle long distance relationships. So if she doesn’t want to date non-Christians – whether it be because she’s following orders, or her parents don’t like it, or if she actually does believe in an overriding moral authority and doesn’t want to be partnered with someone with divergent views, I don’t think you can call that segregation.
At least, it’s not any more discriminatory than a guy who refuses to date ugly chicks (most guys), or girls who won’t look twice at someone who isn’t making a six-figure salary, or even a heterosexual male who refuses to date gay guys. It’s a preference, and no one should try to impose their own preferences for what other people’s preferences should be – imagine if a girl insisted that homosexual males should still date girls (because otherwise, it would be apartheid), even if they weren’t attracted to them!
1) I’ll refute that on 2 counts – first, both don’t end up going out together even if one wanted to, so the deal is that there is still segregation.
-well, religion aside, if a guy asked a girl out and she didn’t want to (even if he really did!), they still won’t end up going together.
Both have to want to go out together, or at least be not opposed to going out together – but be forestalled by rules or some outside authority – in order for it to be considered segregation. This case was just rejection.
P.S. I think there was some miscommunication and she thought your invitation to tea was a signal of romantic – and not friendly – interest, hence her “i don’t date nonchristians” thing.
Ambrose // Monday, May 18, 2009 at 8:02 am |
I think there is a very fine line you’re treading there. How and when can the girl’s decision be attributed to her preferences, and when can they be attributed to external rules?
There is one very important part in emphasis in the blog post that you might have considered in more detail – that is it against christian protocol for a christian girl to go out with a non-christian. That may or may not be part of the girl’s preferences – but that is an external, blanket rule, regardless of the girl’s preferences, regardless of whether the girl wants or does not want to go out with the guy.
Also, you might have gotten the frame of reference of the argument a little off: I am not arguing about the girl or her preferences; I am arguing about the protocol, and this protocol is not a personal protocol – e.g. guys who don’t want to date ugly chicks, guy doesn’t want an LDR – it is a protocol that mandates regardless – this makes preferences out of the point – it is a rule that just applies – just like how apartheid just applied.
I hope you weren’t trying to shift the reference frame from outside rules to personal preferences. If everything could be attributed to personal preferences, nothing, or nearly nothing, would be wrong.
hopefully a non-offensive christian POV? // Monday, May 18, 2009 at 3:12 pm |
I think we differ about our interpretation of the words “Christian Protocol”. As a (former?) Christian female, I always took that to imply a loose sort of non-binding guideline – like a heuristic/generalization/convention? Protocol in the sense of etiquette, not in the sense of a court order/official criminal statute with legal repercussions sort of injunction. Like… if you’re sitting down for a meal, take the water glass on your right, not the one on your left.
No one’s going to throw you into jail for taking the other glass, but it does make meals with other people more convenient (like everyone driving either on the left or the right side of the road), so you don’t end up drinking from someone elses’ glass, or having your own taken by mistake.
In the same way, the Biblical mention (friendly advice) that thou shalt not be yoked to an unbeliever is interpreted (in more liberal/less fundamentalist christian circles, perhaps) as well, it’s better to date within your own religion so you can be sure you share the same moral values, the same basis of ethical understanding, you won’t fight over which holidays to celebrate or which faith to bring your kids up in, your own faith won’t come under attack, and – for christians, maybe not catholics – you can be sure that your spouse won’t go to hell.
If she meant protocol as a hard and fast unbreakable rule, then I don’t have anything else to add – i guess that wasn’t the way our church taught it.
Ambrose // Monday, May 18, 2009 at 3:40 pm |
Good point on interpretation of protocol, and on the spectrum of the schools of thought between churches. I tend to come down on the hard side though.