Labels, Labels, LABELS

Yesterday, a friend & reader left this comment on one of my posts:

“I don’t know if anyone has addressed this before, but it scares the bloomin’ hell out of a lot of us who USED to claim to be of the Christian persuasion. We don’t want to see this happen at all either. There are millions of us who feel that way. But the right-wing conservatives yell louder than we do. The rest of us are out there trying to push others to recognize the dignity of all people. So how do WE get the presses’ attention. I, for one, and most of my friends, am tired of being lumped into that crazy arse group of fundamentalists. (rolls eyes…) They horrify me. Ooo! Let’s crucify anyone who is gay, but we just have to pray for the Strumpet because he’s misguided, so we can excuse his behavior. What a load of crap.”

I must admit that it made me stop and think.  This is the problem with labels for people.  Labels on cans at the supermarket are a wonderful thing, for we would not otherwise know if we were getting corn or green beans.  Labels on clothing help us know the proper wash water temperature and how to care for a shirt or pair of pants.  Labels on most ‘things’ tend to be helpful and serve a purpose.  People, however, are not ‘things’. labels-3We label democrats and republicans, but what do those labels mean?  I know the basic ideologies of each of those two parties, but does that mean that every single person who is registered as a republican is against Universal Health Care?  Or that everyone who calls himself a ‘democrat’ supports a woman’s right to choose an abortion?  Think about this one for a bit.

We label men and women, heterosexuals and gays.  But why must the label define the person?  I have been as guilty as any of referring to republicans as ‘idiots’ and ‘fools’, though I count among my friends a few republicans who are good people, neither idiots nor fools, else they wouldn’t be my friends.  I remember one time in college, when I was venting to a male professor who happened to be a mentor and trusted friend, and I said that all men were assholes (don’t ask!).  His reply was, “Well, since I am a man, and you believe that all men are assholes, then either you think I am an asshole, or you think I am not a man.  Which is it?”  I have never forgotten that conversation, because I learned something that day.  I learned a lesson that I have since forgotten on more than one occasion:  don’t label people.

labels-2For the past decade or so, the political climate in the U.S. has been becoming more and more divided, antagonistic.  There is, no matter who you are or what ‘side’ you are on, “them” and “us”.  I hear it often … “well, he’s on our side, right?”  And I know that I cannot change that divisiveness with a simple post of about 1,000 words.  But I hope that I can make those who read these words stop for just a minute and let’s do some thinking.

European immigrants first came to this nation seeking religious freedom, freedom from persecution.  That means, at least in my mind, that you can be a Christian, go to the church of your choice, and follow the tenets of your chosen faith.  It also, however, means that Sal Rosenstein down the street can follow his faith, go to Synagogue as he chooses, and light the Menorah at Chanukah.  It means that Ali al-Dabbagh has the right to pray to Allah and attend the Mosque of his choice, without fear. And it further means that if I choose to observe no religion, I am free to do so without condemnation or persecution.

Recently, in this culture of divisiveness we are experiencing, some within the Christian religion have expressed some fairly radical views – views that the majority in this nation do not necessarily support, and that even many within the Christian faith do not support.  Without delving into the specifics, those views are largely discriminatory against any who are different in any way.   This group of people have been obnoxiously loud and vulgar in voicing their views and have drawn the attention of the press and the public alike.  Remember that old saying, “the squeaky wheel gets the oil”?  It’s true.  It’s not right, but it’s true.

To judge all Christians by the actions of only the evangelicals who would ban the LGBT community, rob a woman of the right to control her own body & destiny, and insist that the United States is a ‘Christian nation’, is wrong.  It is just as wrong as it would be to assume that all women with blonde hair are dumb, or that all tall people play basketball!

We will never stop using labels, for they serve a purpose.  If you are robbed at gunpoint in your home and you call the police, they will ask you for a description of the robber.  Male or female?  Black or white?  Young or old?  Tall or short?  These distinctions are necessary in this case, not to discriminate, not to judge, but to identify.  When we are discussing a group of people who behave in a certain way, it is simplest to label them as republicans or democrats, Christians or Jews, males or females.  So no, the practice of labeling human beings is not likely to see an end any time soon, but … let us stop and think when we are writing or speaking, before we apply a label, before we generalize about a group, let’s at least try to make sure that we are not using such a broad label that the net catches those who do not belong.  It’s tough, especially in today’s culture of ‘us’ vs ‘them’, but it’s only fair.

The majority of people in the world, I like to believe, are peace-loving, kind, caring individuals.  There are some who are otherwise.  Let’s try not to confuse the two.  If we must judge, let’s do so based on actions and behaviours rather than on labels.  Let’s try not to judge the whole based on the actions of the few.

*** Note to readers …. I think some have perhaps taken offense to my words in this post, and I want to set the record straight.  I was pointing no fingers at all, unless it was the fingers I had pointed at myself.  The reader who left me the comment, C, made me stop and think and realize that it isn’t fair to lump all Christians in with the evangelicals who are gay-bashing, white supremacist bigots.  I realized just how many times I had done this, and I was ashamed.  That said, I also understand how hard it is not to label or categorize people these days.  Please, take no offense from this post, as none was intended.

71 thoughts on “Labels, Labels, LABELS

  1. Dear Jill,

    I am a person of faith and I know that Keith is as well. I feel like your reader who left the above comment. It’s like I wouldn’t want folks to judge Americans by our president. He is an aberration. Those Evangelicals are an aberration to me. How can you claim to be a Christian and still support a president who’s a chronic liar, a racist, cruel, etc?

    This is why I appreciate the voice of John Pavlovitz so much who is a Christian pastor and author.

    Hugs, Gronda

    Liked by 1 person

    • I am in total agreement with you, Gronda. I know a little about Christianity and the Bible, and I know that the religion does not preach hate and bigotry, but rather love and acceptance. The evangelicals are indeed an aberration, and unfortunately they are giving Christianity a black eye.

      I, too, am a fan of John Pavlovitz and frequently tweet his posts and also share them on Facebook. He has more sense than any I have read.


      Liked by 1 person

  2. Well, none taken on my part. It’s just like you said about the differences within the parties themselves. Just look at the NRA now.They are saying it’s because NY talked business into not associating with them anymore that they are going bankrupt. But the truth is that tons of their own members opted out of membership since everything went down with last school shooting. So every label has a mix of good and not so good. I think the lesson for all of us is to be careful of generalizatin when we’re talking. Sort of like using “I” messages instead of “you” messages.

    (Btw, are you sure about that “not all women with blonde hair are dumb?” 😉 )

    Liked by 1 person

    • Yes, I don’t think we can ever completely stop using labels, but we just need to be more aware, and like every form of speech, stop & think before speaking.

      No, I can’t be sure, and I’ve often been thankful for my mousy-brown-gone-grey hair! 😀

      Liked by 1 person

  3. Hi, this is Choosing, on holidays and apparently not able to properly log in (not sure why!! I do remember my password… ), thus unwillingly posing as “anonymous”:
    This conversation makes my head spin! In a good way though … 🙂 I guess already thinking about how we use labels and why and what for makes us all a bit more aware, maybe a bit less quick in judgment. 😉 It is important to keep a cool head, especially in days like this (saying this, I am very aware that I am not always cool-headed either!!). So – thanks for getting those cog-wheels in my brain move, als always. Hugs from vacation (thus lazy, mostly not commenting)!!!

    Liked by 1 person

    • Good to see you, old friend!!! Just last night I was thinking about you and wondering why I hadn’t heard from you lately, so I was planning to send you a short email to see if you were okay! Glad to know that you are on holiday and being lazy, enjoying life! Are you at your mum’s? Did hubby get to go with you this time? Have a wonderful holiday and stay away from the news!!! Hugs!!!


  4. I’m a person who never labels anything, even himself. Thus, I’m what’s labeled a “non-labelist”, or a person who identifies as some who doesn’t label. Labeling is awful and those who label are labelers, and those who let them get away with it are en-labelers. Awful thing, labels. I hate labels SO much I never know what’s in a can or bottle until I open it. 🙂

    Liked by 4 people

  5. Here’s the thing… We label because we find it easier to identify our tribe and ‘their’ tribe. Which of course leads us to be labelled in turn. So I’m a socialist….which naturally makes me a loony-left follower of Jeremy Corbyn and I am a Christian which at once associates me with the fundamentalists of the ‘Bible Belt’….and what happens when I say I am Catholic….Kahboom!, and I could confuse lots of when I say my surname is Jacob (when didja konvert from Judaism to Catholicism den?)
    So the easiest way for my over worked mind is to judge (yep judge) folk as follows:
    Do they subscribe to and try as best they can to follow (’cause we are all human and prone to anger) the following:
    If they don’t and follow a group which does not….
    I spy the foe!

    Liked by 3 people

  6. I guess I am lucky. I choose to label myself, and by doing so I let the world know who I am: a responsible anarchist, a spiritual atheist. Why am I lucky? Because only “I” understand what either term means–I am the one who coined them. By using these labels I set myself apart from every living being, and I connect myself to every living being. I am a walking paradox. BY CHOICE.
    Remember when we first met, I made a stupid statement saying all Americans were assholes, so proud of being citizens of the greatest country in the world, not caring that very few others in the world accepted them as such. You made me eat those words, which I willingly did, because of course there are nice people in the USA, yourself included. But have you always remembered that you are a nice person, not just a nice American. I hate to say it, but you have often forgotten that. And so have many of your readers who choose to leave comments on your posts. I stopped trying to point those out, choosing instead to fight for the lemmings, who do not jump off cliffs in suicidal panics, and never have. (They do tend to jump off rotating turntables, and fall three inches to the flat surface the turntable is on, but they do not die doing this!)
    Meanwhile, when I talk about Trump’s followers, I do label them as Trum-pets and psycho-phants, giving those followers two choices of who to be, psychotic sycophants, or just plain pets. Doesn’t matter who they are, gender, race, religious or non-religious persuation, they can be anyone, but they are loyal followers of the Dumpy Dumbie with the Orange Twigs coming out of his pate. A label, of course, but intended to only describe their poor-dressing orangutan-like leader with the orange hair-implants (Apologies to all mentally ill people, orangutans, and tiny branches, who are not guilty by association).
    All-in-all, I guess I am trying to say there are times for labels, and times to not label, but the bible missed that ecclesiastical comment. Do what you choose..

    Liked by 3 people

    • A walking paradox you are indeed, my friend! But I must tell you that this comment brought a smile to both my face and my heart. Oh yes, I remember well the rocky start we got off to, and it amazes me that we were able to move from that to being good friends now. Thank you for your heartfelt words … they mean a lot. You are right, I rarely think of myself as necessarily a nice person, for like all others I have my flaws. I don’t think I’m a horrible person, but when I work on my ‘good people’ posts, I see so many people doing things for others while all I do is sit and write this blog.

      As for the labels … you are right that there are times they are necessary. And I certainly agree that anyone who still supports Trump needs either an education or a conscience — maybe both. I just think that when we must use labels, we need to narrow them enough that we aren’t including innocents in with those who deserve the label. But, I also know that I am spitting in the wind, for the mud-slinging and name-calling are unlikely to stop any time soon, if ever.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Writing posts about good people is being a good person. You are spreading word of their works to others who might never have heard of them. You are giving others opportunities to do similar works in their communities, or to come up with even more ways to help those around them. You help remind us to be nice humans, and good living beings. That is often too eadily forgotten.
        Jill, not all people are able to do good deeds the way others might choose to do them. We are each trying to help out others in ways we are capable of doing this. What would be the good if we all did the same good deed in the same way. Only some people would get help, and others would fall through the cracks in society’s umbrella of help. Because we are different, all sorts of people are helped in ways no one else might ever think of helping. This is dversity at its finest. Play the part you are capable of playing. No one else may do it just the way you do.

        Liked by 1 person

        • You are, of course, right. We each have our forte, some things we are good at, others not so much. The important thing is that we use our skills or talents to try to make the world a little better. Not all of us can be Martin Luther King or Mahatma Gandhi, but we do what we are able to. I know it, but sometimes I don’t apply it to myself, and think that I could/should be doing so much more. Still, I’d rather be that way than like some I know who don’t feel that it is their responsibility to give anything to the world, but only to satisfy their own desires. Thanks for the reminder! I’ll try not to forget …

          Liked by 1 person

  7. People are complex, multidimensional and many sided…labels separate people and keep them apart. I agree that it is wrong to label a single person and lump them within a group without taking time to look beneath the surface. It is more than possible that our perception of them is wrong. However, Infidel753 makes a compelling argument about political parties. While all Republicans may not support what some are promoting, it is their choice to remain a part of the party. I shall spend a bit more time pondering upon this conundrum. Perhaps, the only fair label we should use is a name…just call me Gem! Thank-you and Good Night!

    Liked by 4 people

    • Granted, Infidel has a point, but with only a two-party system, and the parties so far divided with no third party ever standing a chance, if those who do not support the filth the GOP is spewing these days, what choice do they have? They can be an independent, as I am, but then they are shut out of most primaries and decision making by the party. I think it’s okay to have different opinions within the party, but not to have to ‘go down with the ship’. Just my thoughts on the matter, for I don’t think it is fair to lump all republicans into the pile of trash that much of the GOP represents today. And I shall always call you Gem! Hug young Benjamin for me!

      Liked by 1 person

      • Therein lies the problem, or so I have come to believe, that only two parties control the entire nation. This will most likely not change in my lifetime, but as the future continues to unfold there may be a demand for change. However, that is not the point of your post (though, perhaps, for another one at some time). There are always choices in life and each must live with the consequences of their choices. We choose our choices, but not our consequences and there are always consequences. It seems to me that, by virtue of their choice, all Republicans will have to bear the consequences of being labeled Republican…whether it is fair or not. Thank-you! P.S. No offense is taken. It is wise to reflect upon our penchant for labeling.

        Liked by 3 people

        • To be calling oneself a republican in today’s America, is to accept the ideologies of fascism, rule by oligarchy, empowerment of xenophobia, denial of the rampant misogyny in our culture, acceptance of cruelty, encouragement and imprisonment of children and the normalization of treason and theocracy. These are just to name a few things I now freely associate with the word “republican”. The Nazis worked long and hard to make the label of being called one a very dark, awful thing. If republicans, as a party, continue down the road they are on, they will, too, come to be known in a similar light. It says something greatly about someone who strongly considers themselves a republican in light of all this. Many people still consider themselves conservatives who once said they were republicans, but these are people who, for the most part, do not embrace the antidemocratic bile that’s engulfed today’s republican party. I feel no remorse in my feeling to label those who embrace today’s republican party as “not the best and the brightest of Americans.” As the party continues to degenerate, my label of them will become far worse.

          Liked by 4 people

        • I have mixed feelings about a multi-party system, but we do certainly seem to have created a logjam with our two-party system. Third parties in the U.S. are a waste of time and money, for a third party candidate is not likely to qualify in every state, and even getting into the debates is a long shot. I shall have to ponder this a bit more when time permits …

          To the point, though … you are so right that there are consequences for every action, and sometimes those consequences were unforeseen and unintended, but … it is how we live and learn. Nobody ever promised that life would be fair. I can almost agree with you and Infidel on the political party labeling … almost, but not quite. But when it comes to the religious … there are such a wide variety of beliefs within Christianity that it seems we should walk very carefully when we apply labels. I have no problem whatsoever labeling the evangelicals as bigots, narrow-minded, racists, white-supremacists, and misogynists. But I won’t apply those labels to all Christians, for I know may who are none of the above. That’s the danger, and in today’s environment where tempers are just about to boil over in violence, and there is so much anger, so much hatred … I just think it best to be very cautious. Sigh. This is a world I never dreamed existed until recently.

          Liked by 1 person

  8. Jill, labels are a lazy argument. To often, they are used to denigrate a person without actually debating the issues. Nazi is an often misused label toward that purpose.

    We must do our best to not label. It can be hard and we will fail at times. Every group has extremists. Those in the group must police themselves and lean toward their better angels. If they do not, their silence will be an endorsement of those who hate and will taint the whole group. That is unfair to many, so it falls on the leaders to lead and condemn the haters.

    Hatred is debilitating. Even to those who hate. We must do our best to avoid hatred. We must listen to each other and treat others like we want to be treated. Only then can we break down barriers.

    The sign you include from 2015 is excellent. Not all members of a group are like those who do the bad things. Yet, we must not be silent. witnesses. We must insist on treating people fairly.

    Again, great post. Sorry for the rambling. Keith

    Liked by 2 people

    • Your words are, as always, wise, my friend. Never, ever apologize for expounding on a topic, for I value your opinion. You are right when you say that those in a group must police themselves, but so often, I believe, that is easier said than done. Sadly, as in the case of Christianity, it is the ones who are trying to actually live a Christian life, to be good people and help others, take responsibility for the lives of others, whose voices go unheard. Meanwhile, the radicals get the ‘oil’ and since that is all we hear, that is the only standard we have upon which to form an opinion.

      I think we will never get away from labels completely, for they really DO serve a purpose in some cases. We just need to be certain that our labels are narrow enough that they include only the people who actually fit in the category.


      • Jill, thanks. There are several examples where leaders failed to police the bad apples and it hurt the faith in the institution. They look to protect the institution instead and end up doing far worse damage. The Catholic Church is the best example. Covering up and ignoring a pedophila priest problem caused far greater damage as they ignore the victims and more got hurt. Penn State and Michigan State Universities have suffered because of cover ups of sexual misconduct. Congress still has problems, but is doing better than before.

        Getting back to religious leaders, my greatest pet peeve is bigotry from the pulpit. Here, the leader is the problem. That makes it harder for the flock to stand up to bigotry. To me, it is a gross direliction of duty and is as good a metaphor about the US President as I can offer. Keith

        Liked by 2 people

        • And now we can add Ohio State to the list. I wonder, when all is said and done, if there will be any major university or corporation that isn’t tainted by covering up sexual abuse? And then you have the leader of the nation, himself a sexual predator and abuser of women, which sends out a message that is the complete antithesis of the message of the #MeToo movement.

          A very apt metaphor indeed. Sad but true.


  9. We label democrats and republicans, but what do those labels mean?

    I accept that in some cases labels are not dispositive. I accept that some self-described Christians, perhaps even the majority, are not bigots. But political parties are a different matter. A political party is an organization established to achieve specific policy goals, and membership in it does matter.

    The Republican party has consistently campaigned on, and tried to implement, policies such as taking away women’s right to abortion, denying gay people the right to marry and laws protecting them from discrimination, and making the US a “Christian nation” in ways that would de facto make non-Christians second-class citizens in our own country. To all this, Trump in 2016 added a venomous demonization of Hispanics. It’s just not possible for an even slightly informed person to be unaware of these things. If somebody simply ignores all that and votes Republican based on economic policy or whatever, they still demonstrate that they are OK with those other policies — that they’re willing to sacrifice the freedom and rights of gay people, atheists, Hispanics, and others as acceptable collateral damage.

    We do not owe such people respect, the benefit of the doubt, or an atom of “civility”. We have no obligation to remain passive or genteel in the face of a political movement which is viciously attacking us, as the conservative movement is. There are good reasons why this conflict is called the culture war, not the culture debate. As Malcolm X said, “I’m not going to turn the other cheek when some cracker is busting me in the jaw.” There is no moral equivalence between the persecutors and the persecuted.

    If a Republican wants to be accepted as being a decent human being, he needs to renounce being a Republican. Doing so is not difficult.

    Liked by 4 people

    • Hmmmm … to an extent, I agree with you as re political parties. BUT … nobody, I believe, agrees with every rung on the platform of his/her chosen political party. I think people choose the party that most nearly reflects their own values and mindset, but it will never be a perfect match, any more than any religion will ever be a perfect match. An example: not every republican is against a woman’s right to choose. So, rather than say, when discussing abortion, “All republicans”, we could say, “All those who are against abortion”, or “All those who would take away a woman’s autonomy over her own body”.

      Again, I largely agree with you where republicans in positions of power within the party are concerned. Congressmen, governors and the like should either speak against the policies of the GOP or else expect to be considered as complicit. But the people … the common people and voters, are not all gung ho over the policies of Trump and the GOP, but where else do they turn? I’m not sure there are a lot of options. To denounce being a republican … fine, but what then? Most republicans I know are far away, ideologically, from the democratic party, so … where do they go? The 3rd parties stand no chance in real elections and are a throwaway vote.

      Liked by 1 person

      • BUT … nobody, I believe, agrees with every rung on the platform of his/her chosen political party.

        Please see my comment — I didn’t claim that every Republican agrees with all the evil that the party stands for. But by definition, if they continue to support the party, they are willing to accept that evil as the price of whatever they agree with — “they still demonstrate that they are OK with those other policies — that they’re willing to sacrifice the freedom and rights of gay people, atheists, Hispanics, and others as acceptable collateral damage”. And that is grounds enough to condemn them. No one who supports that party can be a decent human being. They may not approve of every part of what the party stands for, but they are willing to accept it for whatever reason.

        Liked by 4 people

        • Infidel..You put so well into words exactly what I feel.

          I know a person who doesn’t like trump at all, but votes republican because they are all about business and getting rich and right now his financial portfolio is doing really well. Surely he knows it’s because of loosening regulations on corporations and the EPA regulations on pollution and more oil drilling and fracking being allowed.

          By voting republican he is putting his own personal gain ahead of the future state of the environment and financial deregulation that could hurt many. He is not concerned about gay rights and those of women and minorities. Nor is he concerned about healthcare or education.
          So he has made a choice of being a decent human being over money and money wins. Oh and this man is a so called Christian.

          Liked by 3 people

    • @ Infidel753, @inspiredbythedivine1, I agree totally with what you both wrote. I have had this same argument on my Toy Box. Every person knows the republican party is the party of the tRump cult. To claim you are a republican is to support the policies and goals of the tRump cult. If someone tells you what they are believe them. If they tell you they are republican then they support what the party of tRump is doing and should be treated accordingly. You can be a conservative with out being a member of the tRump cult. However you can not be a republican with out being a supporting member of the tRump cult. Hugs

      Liked by 3 people

  10. Our “tribe” has an inherent need to excise from the crowd anyone who is different in appearance, speech, philosophy, and smell. Acceptance of diversity is not a human trait. To remain on earth as a species we must overcome this trait. As Scottie has lamented. I also don’t believe we can do it. It’s not part of our DNA.

    Liked by 3 people

    • I don’t know, Larry. I might argue when you say that acceptance of diversity is not a human trait. I am human, and I welcome diversity. I live in a neighborhood where, as a Caucasian, I am in the minority, as da hood is predominantly Middle-Eastern refugees and African-Americans. And I love it here … don’t like the management company, but I love my neighbors and have made many good friends here. In fact, the only ones I have, in twenty years, had an issue with were the Caucasians, or ‘whites’. I cannot understand what difference skin colour makes, or what difference religion makes, unless somebody is trying to shove theirs down my throat. And I know I am not alone. I think those who cannot accept diversity are the ones who have a deviant gene somewhere. Sigh.

      Liked by 2 people

  11. I know I shouldn’t label. I do it though. I promise to try a bit harder to focus upon the actual group I object to instead of lumping all under one banner. Thanks for the reminder, sweetie!

    Liked by 4 people

    • That’s all any of us can do, dear Suze … try to remember and ask ourselves if we being fair. It’s really tough these days, but … I keep remembering the words of Michelle Obama: “When they go low, we go high”. I don’t want to sink to the level of the haters and the bigots. Hugs!

      Liked by 1 person

      • Jill I think there is a huge difference how much one can label different groups. For example atheist are a very diverse group because to be an atheist means you simply do not believe in gods. It has nothing to do with anything else. So you can’t say an atheist supports XXX or YYY as a group if that has nothing to do with belief in gods. However a group that acts in a set manner you can then say if you join that group you do support the goals of that group. So yes I think labels have uses. I think it is fine to use a label to describe the group action of a bunch of people belonging to that group. If you march in support of the white supremacists I can label you a racist bigot for example. Very interesting discussion, you have a way of getting people to think and comment on topics. I admire that. Hugs

        Liked by 1 person

        • You are 100% right, Scottie, and you hit the nail on the head with one phrase: “… use a label to describe the group action …” If we are judging based on actions and behaviours, I see nothing wrong with it. That is the key. After I wrote this post and read some of the comments, I found myself thinking back to the days immediately following 9/11. So very many people blamed all Muslims for the actions of 19 men. As you know, I live in a neighborhood with a large Muslim population, and police guarded the local Mosque day and night, for there were threats of violence. My neighbors were afraid to even go to the grocery store. This is the sort of labeling that I am railing against, for it is judging an entire group based on the actions of only a few. I like it when something I write gets people thinking …

          Liked by 1 person

  12. I want to make clear that from now on it’s not all Christians I’m shouting about but just those arse-hole fundamentalists and it’s not all Republicans either, it’s just those who support Trump who is a disaster for your country and the rest of he civilised world.

    Liked by 5 people

    • We all do it … it’s an easy trap to fall into, and I am as guilty of any. Likely I will continue to do it, as will the rest of us. I just thought C made a valid point, in that … how do the 90% or so who aren’t radical, biased, right-wing Christians get to be recognized for the decent people they are trying to be. And how do we differentiate without having to write a paragraph-long explanation every time we refer to the bigots and hypocrites among Christians. I have no answers, but thought it deserves a bit of pondering by us all.
      xxx Cwtch xxx

      Liked by 1 person

      • Good Sunday Jill. I think the answer to your question comes down to this. The label must fit the group it is being applied to. To say all Christians are bigots and want a theocracy is not true. However to say fundamentalist Christians are bigots and want a theocracy is true and the labels do apply to them. It becomes that easy. Hugs

        Liked by 1 person

  13. I’m with you to a point. I feel overwhelmed by these fundamentalist types I call fake Christians ( I know I’m labeling)…and the things they say and do and the hatred and racism and their cultism towards trump, like he is their god. And I ask… where are the liberal or more moderate Christians? Why don’t they speak up to their congregations, on the news, in articles or letters in their local areas? Are they also afraid of losing their job because of some disgruntled far right member of their church?

    I am reminded of people saying decent Muslims never speak up against the terrorists or the Catholic priests who covered up all the sex crimes should have spoken up or coaches covering for their players. All of these people should speak up for what’s decent and right.

    I woke up this morning actually afraid of what’s coming and what appears unstoppable and I don’t even fit into these groups that are hated by the trump cult, but I might someday…who knows.

    Labels are not good, but I think they occur because people in the same larger group ( religion, political parties and ethnic groups including whites) know what they are hearing is wrong, but don’t speak up.

    Liked by 3 people

    • I agree that those who don’t wish to be included in the label ‘radical right-wing Christians’ or ‘faux Christians’ need to speak up and say, “hey, wait, this is not me. I support diversity, I believe in the concept of live and let live”. Why don’t they? I don’t know, just as I don’t understand why democrats in Congress are not speaking out against the ravages being perpetuated by Trump and his band of thugs.

      I wake up afraid every morning. Not for myself, but for 300 million people who have faith in this nation, who are only trying to live their lives, and who are about to become subjects in a heavy-handed dictatorship with little means to stop the madness.

      Labels … they will always be with us, and we will always use them out of necessity. I only ask that we try to remember that not all people who get caught in that net of labeling are guilty as charged.

      Liked by 1 person

    • No reason to apologize for “labeling” in the sense of using words to refer to things. There’s nothing wrong with “labeling” a cat as a cat. There’s nothing wrong with “labeling” a bacterium as a bacterium. There’s nothing wrong with “labeling” a fundamentalist as a fundamentalist. All those “labels” legitimately identify something defined by recognizable salient traits. Ultimately, without “labeling”, we wouldn’t be able to talk at all.

      Liked by 2 people

I would like to hear your opinion, so please comment if you feel so inclined.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s