Note: the Comments form is turned off after two calendar months. If you'd like to comment on an older entry, you're more than welcome to use the Contact form; comments can be added manually, on your behalf.
Fair point. Reading around the story, I haven't been able to discover the relevance of their particular religion; their objection seemed to be a matter of generic self-righteous morality, not specific dogma. It seems they were christian, but that was incidental.
For what it's worth, it seems that they did self-identify as "Christian." Tim's beef might be more appropriately directed at them.
Also, reading the follow-up post, it seems that the people who did this view anyone who is Christian as a member of the "in-group" and anyone who isn't as an "out."
I loved the end of the follow-up post, where the "Christian" is forgiven by the "liberal atheist." Priceless.
How they self-identify and how they behave are two quite different things.
Trouble is, incidents like this (which probably involves some fruitbat sect or cult not connected to any mainstream churches) will be used by some 'liberal atheist' types as a stick to bash all Christians with. Just like many BNP types use the July 7th bombings as a stick to back all Muslims.
"How they self-identify and how they behave are two quite different things."
Sounds a bit like a "no true Scotsman" fallacy. They were Christians (assuming they self-identified honestly) therefore they behaved as (some) Christians behave. Whether they met the standards imposed by that religion is another matter entirely. However, they appear to have been motivated, at least in part, by their religious beliefs, which they identify as Christian.
"Trouble is, incidents like this (which probably involves some fruitbat sect or cult not connected to any mainstream churches) will be used by some 'liberal atheist' types as a stick to bash all Christians with. Just like many BNP types use the July 7th bombings as a stick to back all Muslims.
That's basically what my beef is about."
Well, then your beef is also with the people who do the inappropriate generalizing. However, those who report what happened, using the identifiers chosen by the partcipants, can't really be faulted, IMO.
P.S.: NRT, I hope you don't mind your blog being used as a mini-debate forum. If you do, please feel free to email me and Tim one another's email addresses and I'll be happy to take it private.
There's a followup on Mike Daisey's site here, which puts the whole incident in a completely different context.
Sounds like this wasn't an orchestrated protest at all, but rather a spontanious outburst by an individual with mental health problems (Which probably should not be in a leadership position with any group, religious or otherwise).
No, not at all. The water-pouring was the act of an individual (who wasn't a group leader), but the walkout was collective. Sorry, Tim, but I don't see how this changes the context, beyond reinforcing the christian element of the man's self-justification.
I still have doubts about whether the overall protest was the result of generic moral objections (okay, presumably informed by their religion) by a group which just happened to be christian i.e. they didn't seem to be objecting to anything specifically anti-christian or contrary to specific dogma, merely to something they considered indecent/immoral, just as an overprotective group comprising, say, Jews or Muslims might.
However, in that man's own mind it was a christian issue, and his sheer absence of regard for non-christians is a little chilling.
Incidentally, the linked post was the one Jon mentioned two days ago. ;)
