Mutual Exclusivity on Social Issues by Liberals, Atheists, and Some Moderate Christians
Over the past two years on twitter (and on some blogs), I keep seeing some people – usually liberals, but sometimes atheists and moderate Christians – engage in this game of mutual exclusivity as concerning social issues.
They also seem to have a blind spot or two. They will point out the “sins” committed by Christians, Republicans, or conservatives all damn day long, but then ignore those very same sins when committed by liberals, Democrats, or Muslims, atheists – or whatever other special interest groups they usually pander to.
For example, if you speak out in concern against CIS men using transgender bathroom policies to rape CIS women, trans-activists will say you should be more concerned about churches who harbor child sex abusers.
I think I may have addressed that argument in this post:
The fact that so many churches harbor child rapists, or handle child sex cases improperly, does not automatically make it acceptable to allow CIS men into women’s bathrooms or locker rooms under the guise of being “trans friendly.”
The two are separate topics.
Therefore, I am against this argument from some people that everyone should be more, or only, concerned about child safety at churches than they should be with child welfare at public rest-rooms or public fitting rooms.
It is not a mutually exclusive concept.
An individual can be concerned about CIS men exploiting trans-friendly bathroom rules to rape CIS women, and that same individual can also be concerned about predators using churches to victimize children.
Yes, it’s possible to care about more than one issue at a time.
By the way, some CIS men have already, in fact, taken advantage of trans-friendly policies to sexually assault or harass girls and women in public bathrooms and locker rooms, this is not propaganda or a fantasy; please see the link below (under “Related Posts” section) at the bottom of this post that has examples (links to news stories).
Sometimes, this same argument – the one used about transgenderism I just mentioned – is also used in regards to homosexuality.
For example, here is an excerpt from The Friendly Atheist blog about a news story of a child molester who was working in or for a church:
Church Staffer Arrested After Giant Stash of Child Porn Found on Computer (via Friendly Atheist blog, by , July 16, 2017)
Incidentally, Seven River is affiliated with the Presbyterian Church in America, which believes homosexuality is a “serious threat… to young people in our society” and that parents must be warned “of the homosexual agenda being promoted through the agency of government schools.”
Maybe they should be more concerned with the predators within their walls instead of pretending that evil exists with gay people outside the church.
I thought most atheists fancied themselves as being very intellectual, rational types, but here we have an atheist pitting homosexuality against child sex assault in a sloppy manner.
The atheist author,is putting forth this notion that it is impossible for a person to be opposed to homosexual sexual behavior and also be opposed to child sex abuse at the same time.
Do I personally feel that some churches fixate way too much on homosexuality and should move along? Yes (churches don’t seem to condemn hetero fornication that much, either).
Do I personally feel that some churches (most, actually) are too lax in keeping children in their organizations safe from child molesters? Yes.
But I also recognize it’s faulty to act as though it’s wrong, immoral, or illogical for a Christian to be opposed to both X and Z at the same time (in this case, where “X” might equal homosexual behavior and “Z” would equal child molesting).
A guy being a child molester, or user of child porn, who also happened to be attending, or working for, a church that preaches homosexual behavior as a sin, does not automatically make homosexual behavior morally acceptable.
If you want to demonstrate that homosexual behavior is morally acceptable (especially when talking to a Christian who believes in the Bible and who is opposed to homosexual actions), you need to do so on grounds other than, “John Doe, who worked at Church Z, which is opposed to homosexuality, was arrested for kiddie porn.”
From the very (Link): Fox news outlet the atheist blog linked to in their blog post:
As for his role at the church, Robison was fired and banned from the facilities shortly after the material was found. Investigators say…
And on their own blog post about it was this comment:
The church fired him immediately afterwards and he was charged with several sex crimes this past Thursday. There’s no indication he ever did anything criminal with kids at his church, but the people there obviously misplaced their trust.
Oh. So the church that is opposed to homosexual sexual behavior immediately reported this deviant creep, Robison, to authorities when they found out he had kiddie porn on his lap top, and they fired him, too.
So what is the problem? Why mention that this church is opposed to homosexual behavior?
Those facts – that the church staff reported Robison and later fired him over his kiddie porn use – rather flies in the face of the atheist contention that “this church should be more concerned about the child kiddie porn perverts in their congregation than with homosexuality.”
The church is being blamed for this pervert’s behavior by the atheist site, in a round-about way.
What if Robison had worked at a Shell gas station, or at a Burger King? Would the Friendly Atheist blog author hold Shell and Burger King accountable for this behavior, even though the employer immediately contacted the authorities to report it?
Maybe most of the church members at Robison’s former church that gave him the boot are also opposed to using French salad dressing on their salads.
Would the atheist site say that this church should spend more time being concerned over child-molesting perverts in their church rather than hating French salad dressing? What does one thing have to do with the other?
Also, I’m pretty sure I’ve seen a news article or two in my life of atheists who were also caught using kiddie porn or molesting kids or doing something as awful.
Is it fair of me to say that, “maybe atheists should spend more time policing other atheists for child molesters among them than in bashing Christians or theism all day long on their Twitter accounts and blogs and acting as though they are morally superior to Christians.” ?
I’ve seen some moderate (to liberal) Christians complain that pro-life Christians are only “pro-fetus” but not “pro-baby” because, supposedly, Christians who are opposed to abortion are not doing enough to help orphaned babies.
First of all, there are in fact Christians who adopt orphaned babies, or who donate funds to centers that help single mothers and so forth.
As a matter of fact, Christians rushing to adopt orphans became so “trendy” at one time, some sites started to critique the practice, such as liberal sites Mother Jones and Salon:
(Link): Orphan Fever: The Evangelical Movement’s Adoption Obsession (May 2013)
Christians are writing editorials supporting adoption.
From CT, 2010:
Another link or two on the subject
So, you critics out there fault Christians for being anti-choice but also for not adopting kids (but Christians are adopting kids), and when liberal sites report on Christians adopting kids, they criticize Christians for adopting kids.
There’s this Christian preacher who is saving unwanted babies in Korea:
Do you critics of pro-lifers ever get outside of your bubbles? Because there ARE news reports out there of some pro-lifers who are funding orphanages and adopting children.
If you left your liberal bubbles that are heavy with confirmation bias, you might see some of these stories of pro-lifers who help single mothers, who adopt kids, and so on.
Secondly, the logic does not follow. It does not follow that abortion is automatically ethical and proper by mere fact that some who speak out against it are not funding orphanages or adopting babies themselves.
Either abortion is right or it is wrong; but if you’re going to argue it’s correct and wonderful, please find another rationale other than, “those who are opposed to abortion are not funding day care centers, single mothers, nor are they adopting babies.”
The two issues are rather separate.
Whether abortion is right or wrong is separate from whether or not pro-lifers are funding single mothers and orphanages.
You can argue at most that some or most pro-lifers are not doing enough to support a cause they say they believe in, but their lack of follow-through is not a demonstration that their belief about abortion is wrong.
One would hope that an individual who is opposed to abortion would try to do something, such as adopt unwanted babies, but if they do not, it does not automatically mean that the “pro-choice” side is in the right.
I see this constantly in my Twitter feed or on blogs I visit – liberals, atheists, ex Christians, moderate Christians condemn people for opposing “such- and- such” a topic, but then complaining that the same group of Christians don’t do enough to combat “thus-and-so-other” topic, so, it is argued, they, the Christians, are in the wrong.
I am hoping that the atheists, liberals, ex Christians and whomever else who often employ these debate strategies can finally understand that one can be against two or more issues at once, or, a group be against “issue Z” and yet do a shoddy job of eradicating “issue Z,” but none of which disproves that group’s position on Z is incorrect to start with.