(Updated 8th March)
Watched this program on Channel4 last night about the rise of Christian evangelicalism/fundamentalism in the UK.
Interesting.
I haven’t fully developed my thoughts on it yet. I didn’t agree with a lot of what was said. Also I didn’t disagree with everything that was said.
I was struck by the lack of objectivity displayed. The schools section at the end was probably the thing I agreed with most in the program, yet the interviews shown seemed very one sided.
The extrapolation of conclusions based on anecdotes throughout the program was also quite irritating.
I’m also aware that it’s easy to be critical of not only the content but methods of something you disagree with, which is why i’m holding back on posting my full thoughts until I’ve considered them.
I posted a comment inresponse to a blog post also about this program here.
I’ll probably update this as my thoughts become more developed. Any comments from any viewpoint welcome!
For my memory, topics covered:- (time is rough memory of how long the spent on each subject)
Christian’s protesting (Christian Voice, Jerry Springer the opera) (5-10 mins)
Christian’s promoting abstinence (Silver Ring Thing) (5-10 mins)
Christian’s views on homosexuality (Living waters) (3 mins)
Christian’s helping homeless/drug addicts (5 mins )
Christian’s funding/influencing schools (Creationism) (20 mins)
Update of brief thoughts:-
Christian’s protesting:-
An argument often used against protesting is that it infringes on people’s free speech. Maybe I haven’t understood the argument, but how does someone publicly expressing their opinion infringe on free speech? Having said that, I’m generally against Christians “protesting”. I don’t see it happening in the bible, and the examples we’re given don’t fit well with protesting behaviour, which does often come across as intimidating, divisive, critical etc.
abstinence
His arguments about this didn’t make sense to me. His point was that you the people promoting abstinence were irresponsible, because they weren’t promoting contraception. Now it was portrayed as if they were demonising contraception somehow. Now, they didn’t mention it from what I saw, and I don’t really see why it would get mentioned in the discussion of abstinence. He presented the evidence which shows use of contraception is 85% successful in preventing the spread of HIV or something along those lines. Now I may be wrong, but presumably that’s when contraception is used correctly. Correct application of abstinence will of course be 100% successful in preventing teenage pregnancy’s, STDs and sexually transmitted HIV…
I also think it’s completely unrealisitc to promote abstinence amongst non-Christians. No-one is strong enough to resist the temptations without God, and it’s crazy in general to expect people to live to God’s standards without his help in doing so.
I found his conversation with the Family Planning Association quite ironic. He mentioned how they’re the biggest distributors of advice/councilling/etc/ in this area and then mentioned how over the last 10(?) years occurrences of various STD’s have increased by a factor greater than 10. He then took their advice as to how the abstinence program was wrong and wouldn’t work. Presumably the FPA haven’t ever implemented an abstinence program, and this organisation, the biggest giver’s of advice in the country have seen their advice lead to an increase in infection of that size. But they know best…maybe it’s just me, but I found that section quite incongruous.
For my thoughts on the homlessness/evangelising section see the comment I made in response to Katherine’s post
Don’t have any strong thought’s on the other sections beyond what I’ve already written…
Cheers for your comment on my site, your lifeboat illustration was very useful and I can now see why there is a desire to save people. Still don’t agree with it, but at least you made it a little clearer.
I saw the end of the program, the teaching bit. I have fairly strong views about the whole issue. As do my parents, who I was watching it with… unfortunately their’s are directly opposing to mine so I was trying my best to stay objective while supressing the urge to gag my dad. violently.
I’m not feeling particularly coherent, so I reserve the right to talk nonsense.
As far as the program goes, I agree with you. I think it was badly made. The presenter/journalist didn’t help. More than once he took to ridiculing his interviewees and passing it of as intelligent discussion.
Christians Protesting:
I don’t think the argument is that the protesting infringes on free speech but that what the protesting calls for is. Jerry Springer example: Christians find it offensive so they protest that it should be censored. The censorship they call for would be an infringement of free speech. I find McFly offensive but I have no right to censor them. A better example: I find the view of these protesting Christians offensive and demand they should be censored; protesting Christians find my views offensive and demand that I should be censored – which side should be silenced? Both?
I think the overarching issue dealt with in the program was the imposition of a Christian morality on others. It’s here I think many Christians cross the line. If you ask an average Christian if they think that homosexuality should be illegal (rediculous generalistion to follow…) you’ll probably get a yes. But what right have we to demand that others live by our moral code? (You could make the same argument about drug use, which always raises a few eyebrows when I bring it up). Christians find it abhorent that the Taliban imposed Islamic law on Afghanistan, yet many consider it fine to impose Christian values on others.
The point of Christianity is choice. It’s the fundamental basis of its entire theology. God gave Adam and Eve the choice to eat fruit or not. If God wanted us all to worship him, couldn’t he just make us do it? It’s a choice. It’s meaningless if it isn’t.
Imposing our values on others is wrong. To do so shows a very dodgy grasp of Christian doctrine. (IMHO)
I’m really not very good at expressing all this. Please feel free to demand clarification on anything I’ve said. Like I say, I find it hard to stay coherent when talking about this stuff. If you watched Question Time with the ultra-right-wing beast that is my mum every week, you’d find coherence hard too.
Ok yeah I pretty much agree with those points. I didn’t get that those were his points from watching the program, apart from the teaching section. I pretty much agree about censorship and imposing religious views on other people, but apart from the teaching section it dealt with homosexuality – people who chose to go to living waters or whatever it was called.
Abstinence – The silver ring thing was going to Christian groups as far as I could tell. The helping the homeless bit attempted to portray it as forcing their views on others but was entirely unconvincing.
I understand the issues with the whole Jerry Springer things now. Protesting = ok, calling for banning = not. That makes sense, and i’m generally against censorship. Isn’t it also a bit of a paradox that you’re not allowed to call for something to be censored? Is that censorship?
I agree with what you’re saying pretty much! I think my parents would probably agree with your parents though!
It’s not that you shouldn’t be allowed to call for censorship, it’s just that the censorship itself would be a infringement of free speech. I’m all for these folk protesting for what they believe in, I just don’t agree with them.
Pingback: Mattlog » Blog Archive » links for 2006-03-27
This one makes sence “One’s first step in wisdom is to kuesstion everything – and one’s last is to come to terms with everything.”