Is it right to blame or discredit an entire group over the actions of one bad person from the group?

[Par5]

When I was in school and college, it seemed like the majority of educators were on the left side of politics. YECs are generally conservative-leaning and don’t fancy learning science or becoming teachers. Assuming things have stayed the same, I presume they’re still teaching science in science class.

There's a thing. Teaching science in a science class. I'll stick my neck out and guess that is most probably why they don't teach creationism in a science class. It is a science class after all.

 

[disciple Clint]

Even though I’m a Christian, I sometimes read atheists blogs because I like to see what nonbelievers are writing and thinking about. It helps me to better understand what people whose beliefs (or rather non-beliefs) that differ from my own see the world.

Several of the atheist sites I visit with some regularity have reported on the recent spree shooter who gunned downed eight Asian massage ladies. They specifically noted about how the killer, Robert Aaron Long, was a Baptist who was involved with his church and very much committed to his faith. The bloggers, who are undoubtedly hostile towards religion, wanted to discredit Christianity by pointing out the religious background of the said spree shooter.

Thinking about this, I decided to post a thread about it. Namely, I want to raise the subject with this question: Is it ethically right to blame an entire group based on one bad person’s immoral actions from that group?

For example, let’s say a person from a certain race commits a heinous, violent crime. Would it be acceptable to blame an entire ethnic group because one person from that ethnic group committed a very terrible crime? Of course not! People would call the idea racist.

If a black American kills a white cop, everyone would say it is racist if a reporter, journalist, or blogger decided to castigate all black Americans over it. And rightfully so. Meanwhile, if a Baptist (or at least someone who claims to be Baptist) kills eight massage ladies in a horrific crime, these atheists bloggers seem to think it’s absolutely okay to imply that all of Christianity is bad based solely on the actions of one awful “Christian.” Do these people not see how unfair their thinking is?

Have you noticed that while the media is quick to point out that a white cop killed a black man, that same media never points out that a black man killed a white cop, now is that racist or just part of the liberal double standard.

 

[Nine of Spades]

Have you noticed that while the media is quick to point out that a white cop killed a black man, that same media never points out that a black man killed a white cop, now is that racist or just part of the liberal double standard.

Yeah, George Floyd was a heavy drug user who spent years in prison for an armed burglary conviction. Despite being a terrible person, the media practically beatified him because he was a black man who was “killed” at the hands of a white cop. (I used the word killed in quotes because it’s likely that Floyd died of a fentanyl OD and not strangulation.)

If a black cop kills an unarmed white suspect, though, it would barely make the news. To be fair, a black cop killing a black suspect wouldn’t make the news either. Also, all those black-on-black shootings that happen regularly in the ghettos of Chicago, Detroit, and other poor black majority areas aren’t reported much as well.

You’re not alone in recognizing this pattern. Many conservatives have noted the woke left-wing media’s racial reporting habits and aren’t fond of it either.

 

[Nine of Spades]

There's a thing. Teaching science in a science class. I'll stick my neck out and guess that is most probably why they don't teach creationism in a science class. It is a science class after all.

I’m actually not opposed to teaching young earth creationism in schools as long as it’s a Christian or religious class.

 

[Larniavc]

Even though I’m a Christian, I sometimes read atheists blogs because I like to see what nonbelievers are writing and thinking about. It helps me to better understand what people whose beliefs (or rather non-beliefs) that differ from my own see the world.

Several of the atheist sites I visit with some regularity have reported on the recent spree shooter who gunned downed eight Asian massage ladies. They specifically noted about how the killer, Robert Aaron Long, was a Baptist who was involved with his church and very much committed to his faith. The bloggers, who are undoubtedly hostile towards religion, wanted to discredit Christianity by pointing out the religious background of the said spree shooter.

Thinking about this, I decided to post a thread about it. Namely, I want to raise the subject with this question: Is it ethically right to blame an entire group based on one bad person’s immoral actions from that group?

For example, let’s say a person from a certain race commits a heinous, violent crime. Would it be acceptable to blame an entire ethnic group because one person from that ethnic group committed a very terrible crime? Of course not! People would call the idea racist.

If a black American kills a white cop, everyone would say it is racist if a reporter, journalist, or blogger decided to castigate all black Americans over it. And rightfully so. Meanwhile, if a Baptist (or at least someone who claims to be Baptist) kills eight massage ladies in a horrific crime, these atheists bloggers seem to think it’s absolutely okay to imply that all of Christianity is bad based solely on the actions of one awful “Christian.” Do these people not see how unfair their thinking is?

It’s not at all right to do so.

Although I can’t speak for every atheist it can be grating when some Christians speak about only Christians can be moral when we see this kind of thing.

Unless the no true Scotsman fallacy is invoked it means that a Christian is no more or less moral than anyone else.

My opinion (fwiw) is that the saltiness of atheists stereotyping is a reaction to the perceived holier than thou attitude some Christians project.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

Even though I’m a Christian, I sometimes read atheists blogs because I like to see what nonbelievers are writing and thinking about. It helps me to better understand what people whose beliefs (or rather non-beliefs) that differ from my own see the world.

Several of the atheist sites I visit with some regularity have reported on the recent spree shooter who gunned downed eight Asian massage ladies. They specifically noted about how the killer, Robert Aaron Long, was a Baptist who was involved with his church and very much committed to his faith. The bloggers, who are undoubtedly hostile towards religion, wanted to discredit Christianity by pointing out the religious background of the said spree shooter.

Thinking about this, I decided to post a thread about it. Namely, I want to raise the subject with this question: Is it ethically right to blame an entire group based on one bad person’s immoral actions from that group?

For example, let’s say a person from a certain race commits a heinous, violent crime. Would it be acceptable to blame an entire ethnic group because one person from that ethnic group committed a very terrible crime? Of course not! People would call the idea racist.

If a black American kills a white cop, everyone would say it is racist if a reporter, journalist, or blogger decided to castigate all black Americans over it. And rightfully so. Meanwhile, if a Baptist (or at least someone who claims to be Baptist) kills eight massage ladies in a horrific crime, these atheists bloggers seem to think it’s absolutely okay to imply that all of Christianity is bad based solely on the actions of one awful “Christian.” Do these people not see how unfair their thinking is?

Well interesting the Crabapple Baptist Church has locked all their online presence.
To be expected I suppose.
My take is this has nothing to do with race and everything to do with a mentally ill young man who's guilt over sexual sin turned into a massacre. He is a deeply troubled man.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

Even though I’m a Christian, I sometimes read atheists blogs because I like to see what nonbelievers are writing and thinking about. It helps me to better understand what people whose beliefs (or rather non-beliefs) that differ from my own see the world.

Several of the atheist sites I visit with some regularity have reported on the recent spree shooter who gunned downed eight Asian massage ladies. They specifically noted about how the killer, Robert Aaron Long, was a Baptist who was involved with his church and very much committed to his faith. The bloggers, who are undoubtedly hostile towards religion, wanted to discredit Christianity by pointing out the religious background of the said spree shooter.

Thinking about this, I decided to post a thread about it. Namely, I want to raise the subject with this question: Is it ethically right to blame an entire group based on one bad person’s immoral actions from that group?

For example, let’s say a person from a certain race commits a heinous, violent crime. Would it be acceptable to blame an entire ethnic group because one person from that ethnic group committed a very terrible crime? Of course not! People would call the idea racist.

If a black American kills a white cop, everyone would say it is racist if a reporter, journalist, or blogger decided to castigate all black Americans over it. And rightfully so. Meanwhile, if a Baptist (or at least someone who claims to be Baptist) kills eight massage ladies in a horrific crime, these atheists bloggers seem to think it’s absolutely okay to imply that all of Christianity is bad based solely on the actions of one awful “Christian.” Do these people not see how unfair their thinking is?

Cont....This is somewhat off topic, but I do hope these women are saved from their situation if it ever gets revealed.

 

[SilverBear]

Yeah, George Floyd was a heavy drug user who spent years in prison for an armed burglary conviction. Despite being a terrible person, the media practically beatified him because he was a black man who was “killed” at the hands of a white cop. (I used the word killed in quotes because it’s likely that Floyd died of a fentanyl OD and not strangulation.)

sure lets blame the victim.
We just have to ignore the fact that two separate autopsies ruled his death a homicide
We just have to ignore the horrific video of his murder
We also get to ignore the fact that in that video Floydd was not displaying any signs of fentanyl use much less of a fentanyl overdose

 

[essentialsaltes]

As an atheist who did indeed point out the murderer's connection to the SBC, here's my take.

From the initial reports, it seems he was motivated by guilt over sexual sins.
Jesus himself addresses this situation.

27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:

28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

29 And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

30 And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

Who is guilty of this sin of lust? The woman or the eye of the beholder?
Who needs to be chastised? The woman or the lustful one?

So I mean, we can just say, "Hey this guy was a terrible Christian. Murdering people is not really Jesus' style."

And yet by all accounts, he was a longtime church member. Underwent a second baptism a couple years ago to rededicate himself.

So could the message he got from his church have been the problem? I don't know how much time the SBC spends on that particular passage in Matthew, but as an outside observer I don't hear that message much from American Christendom. Apparently the focus of the last Sunday sermon in his church was about the apocalypse, Jesus returning soon, and the sinners getting what's coming to them with the wailing and gnashing of teeth. There's no evidence the murderer was present for this sermon, but as an outside observer, I do get this impression that this thread of apocalyptic and nationalist muscular Christianity has become quite common now that the political has so become wedded with the religious. People are getting radicalized from the pulpit. This horrific outcome might (I say might) be an example of that.

 

[essentialsaltes]

So to more directly answer the question, no it's not right to blame a group for individual actions. However, if the group is some sort of ideology, we can consider what part the ideology might play if some kind of wicked actions are more common from that group.

 

[pescador]

You made an assertion but didn’t bother to support your idea with arguments or data to prove your view. Explain your position and elaborate on your idea, otherwise you don’t really have an argument.

Where is the word "please" in this post?

 

[pescador]

Have you noticed that while the media is quick to point out that a white cop killed a black man, that same media never points out that a black man killed a white cop, now is that racist or just part of the liberal double standard.

And your evidence for this biased statement is..? (Your last phrase clearly indicates your right-wing thinking).

 

[keith99]

In my experience this is a myth. Atheists believe they know more, but they really only have a surface gloss and a handful of "gotcha" passages that some other atheist took out of context.

You do realize that there have been some surveys regarding Biblical knowledge and athisest score higher that almost all Christian groups. Ironically one of the groups that did do better was Mormons, despite the Bible being only one of their Holy Books and often being called non Christian.

 

[keith99]

If Christianity were so influential and prominent in American society, they would be teaching young earth creationism in public schools and prosecuting atheists for blasphemy. Neither of those things are happening because the First Amendment of the US Constitution declares that our country is a secular nation and that one religion or denomination cannot be given preferential treatment over another. You’re overstating the amount of influence Christianity has in America and our government.

Which was exactly what was happening 100 years ago. But Christians seem to forget the Butler Act and the Scopes trial.

And today Christians still scream when their faith is not given special treatment.

 

[Fervent]

You do realize that there have been some surveys regarding Biblical knowledge and athisest score higher that almost all Christian groups. Ironically one of the groups that did do better was Mormons, despite the Bible being only one of their Holy Books and often being called non Christian.

I'd be curious to see those surveys to see how they were conducted and what they used to define the groups. Simple self-declaration? Sure, there are so many people who call themselves "Christian" and know absolutely nothing of the Bible, and people who are willing to label themselves "atheist" are usually more prone to anti-theist leanings so Biblical study becomes somewhat of a hobby. I'd bet if the groups were divided further such as "practicing Christian" vs "non-practicing Christian" that supposed discrepancy would disappear.

 

[Fervent]

As an atheist who did indeed point out the murderer's connection to the SBC, here's my take.

From the initial reports, it seems he was motivated by guilt over sexual sins.
Jesus himself addresses this situation.

27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:

28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

29 And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

30 And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

Who is guilty of this sin of lust? The woman or the eye of the beholder?
Who needs to be chastised? The woman or the lustful one?

So I mean, we can just say, "Hey this guy was a terrible Christian. Murdering people is not really Jesus' style."

And yet by all accounts, he was a longtime church member. Underwent a second baptism a couple years ago to rededicate himself.

So could the message he got from his church have been the problem? I don't know how much time the SBC spends on that particular passage in Matthew, but as an outside observer I don't hear that message much from American Christendom. Apparently the focus of the last Sunday sermon in his church was about the apocalypse, Jesus returning soon, and the sinners getting what's coming to them with the wailing and gnashing of teeth. There's no evidence the murderer was present for this sermon, but as an outside observer, I do get this impression that this thread of apocalyptic and nationalist muscular Christianity has become quite common now that the political has so become wedded with the religious. People are getting radicalized from the pulpit. This horrific outcome might (I say might) be an example of that.

You're right to highlight dominionist teachings as a possible problem area, though being "radicalized from the pulpit" may not be accurate so much as the pulpit inadvertantely being a factor. It's been my experience that preachers preaching the apocalyptic sermons highlighting coming judgment hold to a theology that forwards that things are going to get worse and what Christians are to do is hunker down in safe spaces until Christ returns to pour out His wrath. Though often this theology is not being fully elaborated upon and so the messaging gets lost in translation and parishoners who haven't had the theological training mix it in with ideas of violent revolution. Certainly, the preaching is a contributing factor but generally the religious flavoring is a mask rather than genuine religious fervor. Additionally, SBC churches are largely independently governed with fairly broad guidelines towards acceptable theological positions so if there is any direct blame it is his local church and not the national body that is at fault.

 

[Occams Barber]

I'd be curious to see those surveys to see how they were conducted and what they used to define the groups. Simple self-declaration? Sure, there are so many people who call themselves "Christian" and know absolutely nothing of the Bible, and people who are willing to label themselves "atheist" are usually more prone to anti-theist leanings so Biblical study becomes somewhat of a hobby. I'd bet if the groups were divided further such as "practicing Christian" vs "non-practicing Christian" that supposed discrepancy would disappear.

@keith99 FYI
Copied below are the results of a PEW survey of religious knowledge covering 11,000 Americans. The source article is at U.S. Religious Knowledge Survey | Pew Research Center (pewforum.org). The survey included 14 questions about Christianity, 13 about other world religions and 5 about non belief. As you can see, Jews scored the highest closely followed by atheists and agnostics.

There is also a 15 question quiz you (and others) can take:
U.S. Religious Knowledge Quiz | Pew Research Center

I scored 15 out of 15 - without cheating. I don't consider myself to be knowledgeable about Christianity, the Bible or religion in general particularly when compared to other atheists on CF. Your average American Christian scores around 7.5/15 on this test. The questions are ridiculously basic.

 

[Fervent]

Copied below are the results of a PEW survey of religious knowledge covering 11,000 Americans. The source article is at U.S. Religious Knowledge Survey | Pew Research Center (pewforum.org). The survey included 14 questions about Christianity and 13 about other world religions. As you can see, Jews scored the highest closely followed by atheists and agnostics.

There is also a 15 question quiz you (and others) can take:
U.S. Religious Knowledge Quiz | Pew Research Center

I scored 15 out of 15 - without cheating. I don't consider myself to be knowledgeable about Christianity, the Bible or religion in general particularly when compared to other atheists on CF. Your average American Christian scores around 7.5/15 on this test. The questions are ridiculously basic.

That doesn't show what is claimed, ie the claim atheists have more knowledge of Christianity, and in fact shows Evangelical Christians as getting the most right about Christianity.

 

[Occams Barber]

That doesn't show what is claimed, ie the claim atheists have more knowledge of Christianity, and in fact shows Evangelical Christians as getting the most right about Christianity.

If you go back and read @keith99 's post you'll see he said "athiests score higher than almost all Christian groups. This is exactly what the table shows. Atheists are the second highest sub-group on Bible knowledge after Evangelical Christians. Atheists also scored higher than Christians in general.

From post #53

You do realize that there have been some surveys regarding Biblical knowledge and athisest score higher that almost all Christian groups. Ironically one of the groups that did do better was Mormons, despite the Bible being only one of their Holy Books and often being called non Christian.

OB

 

[Fervent]

If you go back and read @keith99 's post you'll see he said "athiests score higher than almost all Christian groups. This is exactly what the table shows. Atheists are the second highest sub-group on Bible knowledge after Evangelical Christians. Atheists also scored higher than Christians in general.

From post #53


OB

It's not Bible knowledge, especially as at least 3 of the questions were on Catholic doctrine. Of the 15 questions only 4 are directly tied to Biblical knowledge(Moses, the commandment, Abraham and Jesus' ministry) one is a general theological question, and 3 pertain to the differences between Catholics and protestants. So less than a question separation between atheists and other Christian groups doesn't speak to the question of Biblical knowledge.