My point is that Christian people catch a lot of undeserved grief on HN for really no reason. I see a lot of people doing decent things in the name of Christianity, I don't see a push for "Christian Sharia Law" anywhere at all.
And Joel Osteen is a tool and a fraud.
I don't remember saying that Christians have a monopoly on disaster relief either.
I see milder forms of Christian Sharia all over the place. Just off the top of my head, birth control, abortion, drugs, assisted suicide, alcohol, and marriage are legally regulated based on Christian morality (not necessarily what the Bible says, but what self-professed Christians claim their religion to say) to various degrees.
Christians in general are fine, but a certain subset of American Christians is hell-bent on forcing their religion on the rest of us, and they have a lot of power.
Don't forget widespread genital mutiliation of men in the US that's accepted as the most normal thing in the world - circumcision is straight from Abrahamic religions.
I am fully aware of those. Despite all of them, cutting a part of a child's penis is barbaric and once again - I'm shocked that it's treated as this completely normal thing in the US.
One could say the same thing about injecting chemical and biological agents into newborn children. Circumcision is no less a lifesaving health issue than vaccination. Are you also shocked that people kill and eat animals? Are you also shocked about the biology of sex? Maybe you should examine what makes you "shocked" about medical treatments that bolster the health and wellness of human beings.
I'm a bit confused (honestly). Your link shows benefits, but nothing involving life and death. Or rather: if that's all, and religious reasons are not considered, circumcision is not at all a 'proportionate response'.
To be clear, my perspective is from a society where circumcision is not the norm. I'd say the norm here is not to remove parts of the body unless there's very good reason to do so. Wisdom death probably come closest. But circumcision for health reasons would be akin to removing the appendix in every newborn.
Again, I'm honestly curious. I assumed circumcision (for reasons other than religion) was a fringe position in these circles.
It's not a fringe position. There's plenty of research out there, you can do the footwork yourself [0]. It's not "akin to removing the appendix in every newborn" because it's a minor procedure. Certainly less invasive and dangerous than removing an appendix or wisdom teeth. The research just doesn't support the pearl-clutching that goes on about circumcision. If you want to expose your children to that kind of risk, then don't have your boys circumcised.
If the procedure had never been heard of before and we were deciding today whether it would be a good idea to do this at birth, we probably wouldn’t even consider it.
And this makes him "not a christian"? This is a 'no true Scotsman' argument. If you're going to provide a litany of 'good things', then you shouldn't gloss over the 'bad things' either. Osteen isn't the only minister out there that's fleecing his flock.
And what about the largest christian denomination, a powerful organisation which has a long history of covering up pedophiles in its ranks? Using its political clout to prevent government investigations? And even ignoring the pedophile issue, the standard doctrine of that denomination is making people feel guilty about their actions. 'Original Sin' is one of the most disgusting core components of any major religion; that you owe an unpayable debt from even before you take your first breath, and that you are sinful and should feel guilty about it if you don't constantly try to absolve that debt throughout your life.
And as mikeash says, there's plenty of christian morality forced into our laws. Here in Australia, we've just wasted $120M on a stupid national plebiscite on same-sex marriage (that's non-binding!) because it was forced through by conservative christian powerbrokers - despite long and consistent public support around 70% on the issue. There have only been two plebiscites before here, once for conscription in WWI, and once for the national anthem in the 70s, both of which were nation-defining things. The only reason why this is happening for same-sex marriage is christian morality trying to further force its way into our laws.
Yes, christians do good. Good christians do good. Good people do good. Bad christians do bad. The mafia is a classic example; plenty religious, plenty bad. Fact of the matter is that the proportion of christians helping out in those disaster zones is a miniscule proportion of total christians - if you're going to dismiss the Osteens of the world as being non-representative, why should we also not dismiss christian efforts in disaster zones?
If a minister teaches practices and beliefs that are in opposition to the scripture that defines Christianity, is he Christian? This is clearly not a True Scotsman scenario. I can't call myself Catholic if I don't follow the pope. I can't call myself Muslim if I don't respect the prophet - and so forth. Joel Osteen teaches a philosophy that is far outside of the mainstream of Christianity.
Clearly there are people of all groups who are good/bad etc. The reason I entered into the conversation was to address the bigoted nature of above poster's assessment of what Christian people would do in a hypothetical nuclear war scenario. I suggest that you look at what Christian groups are doing in Texas right now as an example.
And Joel Osteen is a tool and a fraud.
I don't remember saying that Christians have a monopoly on disaster relief either.