Dillards 90: Degrees, Exams, Vacations and Vaccinations, Oh MY!

[jljohnson527]

I can’t help but [emoji2955] at Jill identifying as “Christ-follower” instead of Christian on IG. Technically synonyms, but for many folks I follow, this was the first step on the deconstruction path.

99% chance I’m just projecting, but even that 1% is more than I ever would have expected.

[Giraffe]

23 minutes ago, jljohnson527 said:

I can’t help but at Jill identifying as “Christ-follower” instead of Christian on IG. Technically synonyms, but for many folks I follow, this was the first step on the deconstruction path.

99% chance I’m just projecting, but even that 1% is more than I ever would have expected.

I agree. I’m most interested in seeing where she is 10, 20 years from now. It took me 20 years to go from fundie to atheist. 

[JermajestyDuggar]

15 minutes ago, Giraffe said:

I agree. I’m most interested in seeing where she is 10, 20 years from now. It took me 20 years to go from fundie to atheist. 

I could see her going liberal Christian 10 years from now. But I don’t know about Derick. He might stay where he is. 

[feministxtian]

1 hour ago, jljohnson527 said:

I can’t help but at Jill identifying as “Christ-follower” instead of Christian on IG. Technically synonyms, but for many folks I follow, this was the first step on the deconstruction path.

99% chance I’m just projecting, but even that 1% is more than I ever would have expected.

I am very much a believer however I avoid the term "Christian" as much as I can. I feel that word has many negative connotations that I do not wish to be associated with. "Christ Follower", "Child of God", Adventist are words I'll use to describe my beliefs, depending on who I'm talking to. 

Speaking of...any advice for an instructor who insists on openly denigrating Christian students? Like "I'm sorry you insist on believing in a myth" and then shows himself to be quite ignorant. I'd go toe to toe with him but I just don't have the spoons to deal with that. Its bad enough with the weirdos that insist on sitting on either side of me in class. They both give me the creeps. 

[Pammy]

50 minutes ago, feministxtian said:

I am very much a believer however I avoid the term "Christian" as much as I can. I feel that word has many negative connotations that I do not wish to be associated with. "Christ Follower", "Child of God", Adventist are words I'll use to describe my beliefs, depending on who I'm talking to. 

Speaking of...any advice for an instructor who insists on openly denigrating Christian students? Like "I'm sorry you insist on believing in a myth" and then shows himself to be quite ignorant. I'd go toe to toe with him but I just don't have the spoons to deal with that. Its bad enough with the weirdos that insist on sitting on either side of me in class. They both give me the creeps. 

Maybe, "Your fake-sympathy is not hiding your bias as well as you think it is. I'm here to be educated in (subject) not to have my religion insulted. I'd like a little professionalism, please."

[HerNameIsBuffy]

59 minutes ago, feministxtian said:

Speaking of...any advice for an instructor who insists on openly denigrating Christian students? Like "I'm sorry you insist on believing in a myth" and then shows himself to be quite ignorant. I'd go toe to toe with him but I just don't have the spoons to deal with that. Its bad enough with the weirdos that insist on sitting on either side of me in class. They both give me the creeps. 

Your school should have a policy regarding what constitutes a hostile environment, or something about diversity and freedom from harassment based on protected classes, of which religion is one.

I'd put a request in writing to the teacher that such comments stop, using verbiage from the policy as well as referencing it.  If it continues you take the copy of the email where you've requested he stop with contemporaneous documentation (could be an informal log) of incidents that post-date your notice to him and go to his department chair.  

I definitely do not recommend going toe to toe with him since then you're also engaging in the debate which muddies the waters and makes it easier for them to dismiss your concerns.  It's not about what he believes, it's about what he's subjecting you to and you want to keep that as clean as possible.  It doesn't matter if you're a Christian or not, what he is doing is still offensive.  

Federally protected classes:

• Race.
• Color.
• Religion or creed.
• National origin or ancestry.
• Sex (including gender, pregnancy, sexual orientation, and gender identity).
• Age.
• Physical or mental disability.
• Veteran status.
• Genetic information.
• Citizenship.

[onekidanddone]

6 hours ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

Your school should have a policy regarding what constitutes a hostile environment, or something about diversity and freedom from harassment based on protected classes, of which religion is one.

I'd put a request in writing to the teacher that such comments stop, using verbiage from the policy as well as referencing it.  If it continues you take the copy of the email where you've requested he stop with contemporaneous documentation (could be an informal log) of incidents that post-date your notice to him and go to his department chair.  

I definitely do not recommend going toe to toe with him since then you're also engaging in the debate which muddies the waters and makes it easier for them to dismiss your concerns.  It's not about what he believes, it's about what he's subjecting you to and you want to keep that as clean as possible.  It doesn't matter if you're a Christian or not, what he is doing is still offensive.  

Federally protected classes:

• Race.
• Color.
• Religion or creed.
• National origin or ancestry.
• Sex (including gender, pregnancy, sexual orientation, and gender identity).
• Age.
• Physical or mental disability.
• Veteran status.
• Genetic information.
• Citizenship.

I think parental status is also on the list. I had a boss who told me I should never become a mom if I wanted to have a job. 

[HerNameIsBuffy]

7 minutes ago, onekidanddone said:

I think parental status is also on the list. I had a boss who told me I should never become a mom if I wanted to have a job. 

I wish people like that would be struck my lightning as the words leave their mouths.

[just_ordinary]

19 hours ago, feministxtian said:

I am very much a believer however I avoid the term "Christian" as much as I can. I feel that word has many negative connotations that I do not wish to be associated with. "Christ Follower", "Child of God", Adventist are words I'll use to describe my beliefs, depending on who I'm talking to. 

Speaking of...any advice for an instructor who insists on openly denigrating Christian students? Like "I'm sorry you insist on believing in a myth" and then shows himself to be quite ignorant. I'd go toe to toe with him but I just don't have the spoons to deal with that. Its bad enough with the weirdos that insist on sitting on either side of me in class. They both give me the creeps. 

That’s so interesting. Because my association would be so so different. Christian = christened. May or may not go to church. First assumption- liberal, cultural Christian. Maybe a bit more into it than the norm (which wouldn’t really identify as Christians even if they are baptised and go to church for Christmas and Easter). Christ Follower or similar = bible/faith centric. First assumption- Fundie.

Edited February 23, 2022 by just_ordinary

[livinginthelight]

I like "Christ-follower" but I'm still trying to reclaim "Christian" back from the wingnuts, so I use it as a way of saying "See? Christians can be normal, liberal, progressive people!" I've totally given up on "evangelical" though and ceded that word to the fundies.

 

Edited February 23, 2022 by livinginthelight

[cacophony_grey]

22 hours ago, feministxtian said:

Speaking of...any advice for an instructor who insists on openly denigrating Christian students? Like "I'm sorry you insist on believing in a myth" and then shows himself to be quite ignorant. I'd go toe to toe with him but I just don't have the spoons to deal with that. Its bad enough with the weirdos that insist on sitting on either side of me in class. They both give me the creeps. 

Is this a college instructor? I don't mean to be a downer, but depending on who the instructor is, it might not make much difference one way or another if you make a complaint. If he's that open in saying crap like that, then he's ramped up to it and believes he can get away with it. In my experience, department and university administrators probably already know all about his bias and just don't do a damn thing about it.... I've seen students report professors for saying racist, sexist, homophobic, and other biased things, and while they usually get a sympathetic response from admin (and sometimes offers of individual assistance to get out of the class), they're ultimately usually told that nothing can be done.

I'm absolutely not recommending that you put up with this crap. I always support going after bullies and bigots. But it's good to be realistic that you might not get the result you're hoping for (or at least not while you're still in the class). And if you do speak up, you should also assess if you think he's likely to retaliate. Depending on the discipline, there's subjectivity in the evaluation process (e.g., grading a paper versus grading a multiple-choice test). It's perfectly fine to decide to complain after you've completed the course. Or to make your complaint and then carefully document everything that occurs after just in case there is retaliation. 

In addition to making some type of informal complaint, you might also consider if you want to have a conversation with a supportive advisor about your plans for future classes: if this instructor is in your department, can you chart a curriculum course that allows you to stay away from his courses? If the initial answer is "no," you can decide if you want to push back on being required to return to an abusive environment. (Sometimes you're best leverage occurs BEFORE you're in the situation ... again.)

I am so sorry that you're dealing with this, feministxian. I can imagine that it's keeping you from getting the experience you are due in the class. 

[PlentyOfJesusFishInTheSea]

16 minutes ago, cacophony_grey said:

Is this a college instructor? I don't mean to be a downer, but depending on who the instructor is, it might not make much difference one way or another if you make a complaint. If he's that open in saying crap like that, then he's ramped up to it and believes he can get away with it. In my experience, department and university administrators probably already know all about his bias and just don't do a damn thing about it.... I've seen students report professors for saying racist, sexist, homophobic, and other biased things, and while they usually get a sympathetic response from admin (and sometimes offers of individual assistance to get out of the class), they're ultimately usually told that nothing can be done.

I'm absolutely not recommending that you put up with this crap. I always support going after bullies and bigots. But it's good to be realistic that you might not get the result you're hoping for (or at least not while you're still in the class). And if you do speak up, you should also assess if you think he's likely to retaliate. Depending on the discipline, there's subjectivity in the evaluation process (e.g., grading a paper versus grading a multiple-choice test). It's perfectly fine to decide to complain after you've completed the course. Or to make your complaint and then carefully document everything that occurs after just in case there is retaliation. 

In addition to making some type of informal complaint, you might also consider if you want to have a conversation with a supportive advisor about your plans for future classes: if this instructor is in your department, can you chart a curriculum course that allows you to stay away from his courses? If the initial answer is "no," you can decide if you want to push back on being required to return to an abusive environment. (Sometimes you're best leverage occurs BEFORE you're in the situation ... again.)

I am so sorry that you're dealing with this, feministxian. I can imagine that it's keeping you from getting the experience you are due in the class. 

I work at a uni and I think we'd make the prof take some hr sensitivity training, especially if more than 1 student complained. We have a wacky prof who shoots his mouth off in our department and he had to do this. Debatable if he learned anything but perhaps he watches what he says just a little more now.

[cacophony_grey]

16 minutes ago, PlentyOfJesusFishInTheSea said:

I work at a uni and I think we'd make the prof take some hr sensitivity training, especially if more than 1 student complained. We have a wacky prof who shoots his mouth off in our department and he had to do this. Debatable if he learned anything but perhaps he watches what he says just a little more now.

It's definitely better than it used to be. When I first started teaching, there was a professor in Anthro who would fully preach at students his weird combo of Biblical beliefs and outdated anthropology (e.g., "it's Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve;" bullshit about women's "natural" abilities; all kinds of "nativist cultures" white supremacy). I advised the school's LGBTQ+ student organization, and students would come to me with horror stories about their complaints going nowhere. Even we fellow faculty couldn't get any traction in getting anything to happen to this professor. 

A big reason things are better now is that students are collectively less willing to put up with that kind of crap. They'll just go public and burn it all down, so administrators know they can't afford to ignore the concerns. But there's also still this idea that you can "wait out" students, who will finish the course and then move on to other priorities.

And it's also discipline specific. For example, three years ago, students were complaining en masse about a business prof who just simply wasn't doing the work in his online class (e.g., releasing material three or four weeks late but still expecting students to hit course deadlines), and students were told that since the course was an elective, the business college would just let them drop it without charge. Nothing happened to the prof.

Faculty pushing their own agendas and treating their classrooms like their own private fiefdoms is not the common occurrence that some right-wing and fundamentalist groups think it is, but it does happen. And universities, for a variety of reasons, are really bad at handling it when it does.

Edited February 23, 2022 by cacophony_grey
Typo

[Alisamer]

2 hours ago, just_ordinary said:

That’s so interesting. Because my association would be so so different. Christian = christened. May or may not go to church. First assumption- liberal, cultural Christian. Maybe a bit more into it than the norm (which wouldn’t really identify as Christians even if they are baptised and go to church for Christmas and Easter). Christ Follower or similar = bible/faith centric. First assumption- Fundie.

With "christened" do you mean the actual christening ceremony as an infant, with baptism included? The thing is - LOTS of Christians in the US are not, ever, christened. That's not a thing at all in many protestant churches, and the fundies we follow here are majority baptist where the major point of it being a denomination at all is no infant baptism. 

Some Baptist churches will have "baby dedications", but it's most definitely not a christening in any way, it's more a chance to show off the new baby to the church and give everyone a chance to ooh and ahh and congratulate the parents afterward. There's usually a line said about the church welcoming the child into the family of the church or something, but it's about raising the child in the church. The child still has to decide, on their own, once they are of age to make that decision, to join the church and be baptized as Christian. They aren't church members before Baptism, even if they're 30 and have attended every Sunday since birth. 

I consider myself loosely Christian though I've been told many of my personal beliefs lean more pagan. I don't volunteer that I'm Christian unless asked, generally, and then feel the need to clarify. 

I think the majority of the MAGA people in the US identify as "Christian", though they likely only attend church for weddings and funerals and the Bible on their shelf is a dusty one their grandparents got them when they were a kid. Despite that, they are more Bible-thumpy than many Christians who attend more liberal churches regularly. The liberal cultural Christians are quieter as a group than the loud obnoxious very conservative people who claim to be Christians. 

I think that's one thing that's really confusing - the US looks like a very Christian place from the outside, and it is, but... there are a huge number of people who are big fans of church + state who actually haven't set foot in a church in decades. They believe in God, but usually only pray when they're in need. They claim to follow Jesus while actually kind of being the opposite of Jesus, because all they remember is stuff from childhood Sunday school and songs about Zaccheus climbing a tree aren't too relevant politically. 

There are the fundies, who are nuts. There are the evangelicals who attend church regularly, who are also nuts and are more active politically and are IMO more dangerous. There are the "Christian" masses who freak out at the idea of not having prayer in school, yet will be out on the lake or tailgating a NASCAR race or football game instead of in church on Sunday morning. They are dangerous with their votes and loudness and tendency to love guns. These are the people who would cry persecution if they were asked to work on a Sunday, God's day of rest. Not because they're going to church though. They'll be out fishing or hunting or playing/watching sports, or dozing on the recliner or whatever. They vote with the fundies and evangelicals, but without all the church attendance. That's why they are cool with Trump - he's like them. Claims Christianity when it benefits him, but hasn't stepped into a church service voluntarily in years. Uses Bible rules to beat down other people while conveniently not following any of them himself. 

I would rather see Jill go toward liberal church-going follower of Christ, than toward conservative cultural Christian. 

It's wierd. People are wierd. 

The more liberal, open minded people are the majority - whether they attend church or not. The Christian ones among them tend to follow Jesus' example rather than leaning on the laws. But they are not so loud or dangerous as the minority of people who enjoy using the Bible as an excuse to hate people.

[feministxtian]

26 minutes ago, Alisamer said:

The more liberal, open minded people are the majority - whether they attend church or not. The Christian ones among them tend to follow Jesus' example rather than leaning on the laws. But they are not so loud or dangerous as the minority of people who enjoy using the Bible as an excuse to hate people.

I do read/study my bible frequently. In all my reading, in a variety of translations, including KJV, I don't see anything about hating people, forcing beliefs on others, dominionism, "love of country", and all the other shit the right wing whackos go on and on about. 

The big commandment is "Love God and love your neighbor as yourself". But these people are using their alleged religion to mask their fear of the other. I read a book about that but I'll be damned if I can remember it. I do not understand how they can hate another who is also made in the image and likeness of the Creator. By hating, I am rejecting aspects of the Creator. It don't work that way. But then again, I don't believe in the idea of eternal torture either...another really sick belief that has no real biblical foundation. 

[EmCatlyn]

On 2/10/2022 at 1:31 PM, neuroticcat said:

It sounds to me like maybe more was going on behind the scenes with the release of the records. I mean, in a small town community, it doesn’t seem a reach that there was animosity toward the Duggars such that a public servant would be eager to publicize their scandal. I imagine that would feel really gratifying honestly, if you had watched them rise to fame and in day to day life found them abusive or offensive. Combine that with ignorance or stupidity in how it would affect minors, and I could see a result where it wasn’t innocent yet also wasn’t specifically malicious toward the victims.

I think the blaming/shaming bit is more broadly for survivors in general - the girls included - who are silenced and the secondary and tertiary abuse when allegations are mishandled. I also wonder if during the lawsuit they weren’t legally permitted to speak about it, and now with this result that adds injury?

One thing I never understood about this case was whether the issue was that the documents were improperly redacted (they were) or that they were released at all.  Not being a lawyer, my feeling all along was that the part about Josh having molested 5 girls should have been released, but the identity of the 5 girls should have been protected by careful redaction.

Because a lot of the report made it clear that 4 of the victims were Josh’s sisters, most of the report should have been “redacted” (that is to say, crossed/blackened out).  One could argue that whoever was in charge of redacting before releasing just didn’t know how to comply with the request for release (which seems to have been in order) and the need to protect the identity of victims.  

Maybe she didn’t take enough care because of animosity towards the Duggars, but I know that with the best intentions in the world, most people would find it difficult to redact that report sufficiently to conceal the fact that Josh molested his sisters while still having a report to release.

Was this the crux of the case?  Was it argued that since it was impossible to redact the police report to exclude clues to the identity of the victims the report should not have been released at all?

Derrick is right that carelessness and even malice by public servants is too often protected, but in this case I think the public servant might be forgiven for not knowing exactly what to do.  It isn’t everyday that you have to redact a report with so many clues as to the identity of the victims.

[EmCatlyn]

On 2/22/2022 at 11:30 AM, JermajestyDuggar said:

I could see her going liberal Christian 10 years from now. But I don’t know about Derick. He might stay where he is. 

Derick seems to be on the road to “liberal Christian” also, given that he has switched a lot of his focus from Biblical preaching to secular law.

 

7 hours ago, just_ordinary said:

That’s so interesting. Because my association would be so so different. Christian = christened. May or may not go to church. First assumption- liberal, cultural Christian. Maybe a bit more into it than the norm (which wouldn’t really identify as Christians even if they are baptised and go to church for Christmas and Easter). Christ Follower or similar = bible/faith centric. First assumption- Fundie.

Here in the (USA) South, “Christian” usually means Baptist or Church of Christ or some other group (Pentecostal, for example) that does not practice infant baptism and expect people to have some form of religious experience before baptism.  They talk a lot about a “personal relationship with Christ” and are often convinced that “all you need is faith” and so on.  They each is convinced that other groups are “not really Christian.”  

I have more than once had to correct people who thought Catholics, Episcopalian and Lutherans were not real Christians and were not so sure about Methodists and Presbyterians.  (Interestingly, Lutherans, the Methodists and the Presbyterians all have what I would consider “fundie-lite” branches.)  

Anyway, I always hold that a Christian is one who believes in the teaching and divinity of Jesus Christ, while I would consider someone who identifies as a Christ-follower to possibly have less faith in the divinity of Jesus but sincere adherence to Jesus’s message. (I would guess this is not Jill’s meaning)  However, many of the religions that practice infant baptism reserve the term “Christian” to those who have been baptized.

To give another perspective still, I grew up in a Spanish-speaking, nominally Catholic household where the term “Christian” was used as a shorthand for “civilized people” with no religious connection whatsoever.  I remember being urged to sit up straight and eat my dinner, “como los cristianos” (“like Christians do”).  Bare feet on the coffee table was not what “los cristianos” did.   I would hear people criticized for doing something eccentric instead of acting “como los cristianos.”  It was not about religion but about social conformity.  

In short, people use the term “Christian” in many different ways. And I can see why, if you are uncomfortable with the way some people who call themselves “Christian” are behaving, you may want to identify as a “Follower of Christ” instead.  

[nokidsmom]

3 hours ago, cacophony_grey said:

It's definitely better than it used to be. When I first started teaching, there was a professor in Anthro who would fully preach at students his weird combo of Biblical beliefs and outdated anthropology (e.g., "it's Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve;" bullshit about women's "natural" abilities; all kinds of "nativist cultures" white supremacy). I advised the school's LGBTQ+ student organization, and students would come to me with horror stories about their complaints going nowhere. Even we fellow faculty couldn't get any traction in getting anything to happen to this professor. 

A big reason things are better now is that students are collectively less willing to put up with that kind of crap. They'll just go public and burn it all down, so administrators know they can't afford to ignore the concerns. But there's also still this idea that you can "wait out" students, who will finish the course and then move on to other priorities.

@feministxtian I am sorry you are going through that.  

As an alumni, I know that things are better at the conservative Christian college I went to if only because because students are going public and collectively demanding that they be treated better over discriminatory / bigoted behavior from profs or administrators.  I won't identify the school, but in recent years (like the last 10-15) there have been a lot more negative reviews and news reports over issues regarding LBGTQ / sex discrimination / sexual  harrassment & assault whereas before things were often swept under the rug knowing that students couldn't do much nor would it make the local news.  I know from my own experience you could go to administration and they would be all nice and sympathetic but ultimately would do nothing.   But more students are getting fed up and refusing to let administrators off the hook, they want action not just nice talk only to ignore it.    Oh, and a lot more students (or their parents) read this stuff and decide against going there.   And alumni like myself cut ties and tell them to stop soliciting for donations because we won't support them anymore.   It might not make a difference at a large uni but at a small private college it's a lot easier to hit them in the pocketbook.  

[mpheels]

9 hours ago, livinginthelight said:

I like "Christ-follower" but I'm still trying to reclaim "Christian" back from the wingnuts, so I use it as a way of saying "See? Christians can be normal, liberal, progressive people!" I've totally given up on "evangelical" though and ceded that word to the fundies.

 

I’m nominally Methodist (culturally Methodist?, a Methodist Diest?). Over Christmas, I said something about Methodists being evangelical, on the basis that John Wesley was an early leader of the evangelical movement, and my mom was horrified that I would say such a thing. My family is very much of the Jesus was a Socialist mindset, and culturally do not identify with the modern conservative evangelical movement. 

[just_ordinary]

19 hours ago, Alisamer said:

With "christened" do you mean the actual christening ceremony as an infant, with baptism included? The thing is - LOTS of Christians in the US are not, ever, christened. That's not a thing at all in many protestant churches, and the fundies we follow here are majority baptist where the major point of it being a denomination at all is no infant baptism. 

Some Baptist churches will have "baby dedications", but it's most definitely not a christening in any way, it's more a chance to show off the new baby to the church and give everyone a chance to ooh and ahh and congratulate the parents afterward. There's usually a line said about the church welcoming the child into the family of the church or something, but it's about raising the child in the church. The child still has to decide, on their own, once they are of age to make that decision, to join the church and be baptized as Christian. They aren't church members before Baptism, even if they're 30 and have attended every Sunday since birth. 

I consider myself loosely Christian though I've been told many of my personal beliefs lean more pagan. I don't volunteer that I'm Christian unless asked, generally, and then feel the need to clarify. 

I think the majority of the MAGA people in the US identify as "Christian", though they likely only attend church for weddings and funerals and the Bible on their shelf is a dusty one their grandparents got them when they were a kid. Despite that, they are more Bible-thumpy than many Christians who attend more liberal churches regularly. The liberal cultural Christians are quieter as a group than the loud obnoxious very conservative people who claim to be Christians. 

I think that's one thing that's really confusing - the US looks like a very Christian place from the outside, and it is, but... there are a huge number of people who are big fans of church + state who actually haven't set foot in a church in decades. They believe in God, but usually only pray when they're in need. They claim to follow Jesus while actually kind of being the opposite of Jesus, because all they remember is stuff from childhood Sunday school and songs about Zaccheus climbing a tree aren't too relevant politically. 

There are the fundies, who are nuts. There are the evangelicals who attend church regularly, who are also nuts and are more active politically and are IMO more dangerous. There are the "Christian" masses who freak out at the idea of not having prayer in school, yet will be out on the lake or tailgating a NASCAR race or football game instead of in church on Sunday morning. They are dangerous with their votes and loudness and tendency to love guns. These are the people who would cry persecution if they were asked to work on a Sunday, God's day of rest. Not because they're going to church though. They'll be out fishing or hunting or playing/watching sports, or dozing on the recliner or whatever. They vote with the fundies and evangelicals, but without all the church attendance. That's why they are cool with Trump - he's like them. Claims Christianity when it benefits him, but hasn't stepped into a church service voluntarily in years. Uses Bible rules to beat down other people while conveniently not following any of them himself. 

I would rather see Jill go toward liberal church-going follower of Christ, than toward conservative cultural Christian. 

It's wierd. People are wierd. 

The more liberal, open minded people are the majority - whether they attend church or not. The Christian ones among them tend to follow Jesus' example rather than leaning on the laws. But they are not so loud or dangerous as the minority of people who enjoy using the Bible as an excuse to hate people.

It’s a mix of baby christening, which makes you a candidate for being a Christian, and confirmation (teenage years), which makes you an active member of the church (in theory). Being christened as baby will be enough to say someone is Christian in everyday language. But there is no assumption you are actually practicing the religion in any way. At least that’s how we look at it. 

The majority just goes through with both (less and less every year, might even be the minority already) but there is no real place for praying, the bible, the church, or anything faith related apart from celebrating the holidays. We don’t have people openly identifying as Christians if they are not actually active in church or dive deep into faith. The liberal ones, don’t talk much about it. So you won’t realise it for a long time that they are actually quite active. And even they don’t pray at home or read the bible. They are more involved in the community, visiting old/lonely people, volunteering. They still have no problem going against doctrine, looking at it critically or criticise ultra conservative ideas and they have no problem being open about it.
The other set is Fundie. Talking about faith and church. Having their live influenced by church, religion, bible….. 

Someone not christened/confirmed would never call himself a Christian (maybe a Fundie that had a religious revelation late in life and really took it on but never affiliated with a church?). And no one would even ask. I think people here had a problem wrapping their head around your approach. Either you are not a Christian (because no christening/confirmation) but like some aspects or feel well with mixing from various different believes or you are a Christian but also open to different ideas and actually live a mix. It’s mostly semantics but also the way we deal with those words and what they carry is very very different. I find it fascinating but I am often enough at a loss with mindsets here because our way is just so different (role of a pastor’s spouse or being liberal but reading the bible at home, really praying and take real life consequences from faith). But then, being conservative here is pretty much equivalent to Bernie Sanders. So the same words mean the same but are filled with a completely different substance.

[HerNameIsBuffy]

2 hours ago, just_ordinary said:

It’s a mix of baby christening, which makes you a candidate for being a Christian, and confirmation (teenage years), which makes you an active member of the church (in theory). Being christened as baby will be enough to say someone is Christian in everyday language. But there is no assumption you are actually practicing the religion in any way. At least that’s how we look at it. 

The majority just goes through with both (less and less every year, might even be the minority already) but there is no real place for praying, the bible, the church, or anything faith related apart from celebrating the holidays. We don’t have people openly identifying as Christians if they are not actually active in church or dive deep into faith. The liberal ones, don’t talk much about it. So you won’t realise it for a long time that they are actually quite active. And even they don’t pray at home or read the bible. They are more involved in the community, visiting old/lonely people, volunteering. They still have no problem going against doctrine, looking at it critically or criticise ultra conservative ideas and they have no problem being open about it.
The other set is Fundie. Talking about faith and church. Having their live influenced by church, religion, bible….. 

Someone not christened/confirmed would never call himself a Christian (maybe a Fundie that had a religious revelation late in life and really took it on but never affiliated with a church?). And no one would even ask. I think people here had a problem wrapping their head around your approach. Either you are not a Christian (because no christening/confirmation) but like some aspects or feel well with mixing from various different believes or you are a Christian but also open to different ideas and actually live a mix. It’s mostly semantics but also the way we deal with those words and what they carry is very very different. I find it fascinating but I am often enough at a loss with mindsets here because our way is just so different (role of a pastor’s spouse or being liberal but reading the bible at home, really praying and take real life consequences from faith). But then, being conservative here is pretty much equivalent to Bernie Sanders. So the same words mean the same but are filled with a completely different substance.

Out of curiosity, where are you getting the information that these people don't pray at home.?   Most of the people in my life are marginally religious and do not read the bible, but prayer is still something they do daily.

At this point I'm waffle between agnostic and angry believer (I can't shake the belief in the divinity of Christ despite really trying) and I still pray every day as a knee jerk response despite the fact that while I maintain some belief in God despite my best efforts, I really don't like him.

Edited February 24, 2022 by HerNameIsBuffy

[just_ordinary]

56 minutes ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

Out of curiosity, where are you getting the information that these people don't pray at home.?   Most of the people in my life are marginally religious and do not read the bible, but prayer is still something they do daily.

At this point I'm waffle between agnostic and angry believer (I can't shake the belief in the divinity of Christ despite really trying) and I still pray every day as a knee jerk response despite the fact that while I maintain some belief in God despite my best efforts, I don't really don't like him.

I will admit it’s a mere personal assumption based on all the Christians I know. And after the definition I gave that’s most of the people I know a bit more. Could a secret majority regularly pray or read the bible at home? Sure. But I think people would notice. Praying before eating for example. Not even the people most active in their church do it. And I would argue I have more people actively around the church and religion in my life than most (teacher for Christian religion, organ players, singing in the church choirs, volunteering inside the church structure). Many don’t even have a bible at home anymore. And that’s true for urban and rural living situations. And goes through all age groups. Many old people (70+) are pretty relaxed about this, when you would think they would be more conservative. There is a big difference in how people approach the personal relationship with faith. The involved ones that you would call liberal are active but not necessarily inside their home. They volunteer but the personal relationship with God or Jesus are really not that important. Most are less Jesus centric. His message is taken into account but if they pray they pray to God. That’s actually a big difference to our Fundies. Talking about “finding Jesus”, praying to Jesus, calling him Lord, exploring your personal relationship with Jesus are most definitely things that put you deep into Fundie territory here.

The idea of being a decent human is completely decoupled from faith for the massive majority. So even active Christians wouldn’t say their morals are actually based on Christian principles. Maybe in some points, but most might see it as an alignment than saying their faith is the fundament.

I could be completely off, but I dare to say I don’t think I am reading the society I am living in so wrong. Especially because compared to all the people I know a bit better I am more involved in faith/religion/church than most.

Please note I talk about the majority of liberal Christianity that actually are practicing their religion to degrees. Of course there is a small minority being more into those things. Looking at the whole society, there is also the overwhelming majority of atheists, the big group of cultural Christians, and the Fundies (thankfully still a low number under 5%).

Other religious affiliations not taken into account.

Edited February 24, 2022 by just_ordinary

[DalmatianCat]

Is this the week Derrick is most likely taking the bar?

[HerNameIsBuffy]

16 minutes ago, DalmatianCat said:

Is this the week Derrick is most likely taking the bar?

It was the 22nd and 23rd so if he did it's over now.  

I know it's not uncommon to fail the first time, but I don't know the stats on how many pass on their second go round.  Does anyone here know?  

Idk if it's different in AR, but every lawyer I know (several in the family) graduated law school and then got a job and took the bar on their employers dime.  That wasn't recently so Idk if it's changed or it's unique to my area.  

[Alisamer]

23 minutes ago, just_ordinary said:

I will admit it’s a mere personal assumption based on all the Christians I know. And after the definition I gave that’s most of the people I know a bit more. Could a secret majority regularly pray or read the bible at home? Sure. But I think people would notice. Praying before eating for example. Not even the people most active in their church do it.

For most people I am aware of, "praying at home" means a short silent prayer as they lay down to sleep, and maybe one similar when they wake up in the morning. There's nothing that anyone would ever notice, they just lie down in bed, close their eyes, and think a short prayer before drifting off to sleep. Even the ones who pray before eating, unless they are with a church group and do a group prayer, it's a quick, silent, bow the head for a moment and close the eyes, think "Lord bless this food Amen" or similar, and it's done. Possibly noticeable if you're looking right at them, but not obvious. Even with a church group, it's usually a short and quiet prayer so as not to draw attention or disturb anyone nearby. 

It's the crazy fundies and evangelicals who make big productions of praying. Pretty sure the Bible said to keep prayer private.