Help me understand this type of statement

[Teenytoona]

I've often heard someone say something like "As a fill-in-the-blank-religion, I wouldn't" lie, cheat, steal, or some other moral thing that most followers of most religions wouldn't do. Everytime I hear it, it seems to me to be of a self-serving type of purpose. It either seems to be "I'm superior because I'm ______" religion, or an advertisement for the religion, or an assumption that only those of their particular religion would be so honest/moral.

Now I'm trying to be understanding of a particular person, so I want to know, is there any other reason besides self-glorifying or using it as an evangelizing moment for someone to use this type of statement. It always rubs me the wrong way. But I'm trying to see it in another light, if that is possible.

Thanks for you help.

[cappuccinosmom]

I'm not sure what context that comment was in.

It could be a snooty/self-serving comment, for sure.

OTOH, my faith informs and directs everything I do, and it is so ingrained in my heart that when I think, or converse, or write, it often comes out. If I said "As a Christian, I cannot lie", that would not be implying that people in other religions think lying is OK. It's saying "I have a particular reason that compels me not to lie, and that is my Christian faith" Other people may have their own faiths compelling them not to lie or other reasons not to, and my statement wouldn't exclude that. It's just a statement about myself and my own beliefs and reasoning. Nothing to do with superiority.

ETA: I've also seen it used and used it in conversation with other Christians. IF there's an issue they have, or if they're dealing with another Christian who's doing something wrong it's not uncommon to start a sentance with "As a Christian..." or "As Christians..." and then go on to explain why this thing or attitude is wrong according to the teachings of Christianity.

Using another religion, if a Muslim said to me "As a Muslim, I believe in modesty" it wouldn't bother me. As a Christian, I do too. That's a commonality rather than a point of contention, and I'd be perfectly happy to take it as such.

[Teenytoona]

Hmm, context, let's say, someone found a wallet, and turned it into the police. In doing so, they say: "As a Fill-in-the-Blankist, I am compelled to turn this in." To me it always comes across as a my religion is superior or a conversion tactic sort of statement. I'm trying to understand how it could be somethign other than that. I've heard it with a holier than thou tone, but I've heard it spoken without that tone to it. So I reckon this means there's a different way for me to percieve it, and I'm trying to keep it in mind so I won't do snap judgements in my head upon hearing such a thing.

I think it makes sense from one member of a religion to another of the same. I guess it rubs me wrong when it's from one member of a certain religion to a person of a different or a presumed different religion. For example, the cop who's recieving the wallet may be a Fill-in-the-Blankist or they may be something different, but could still hold the same values as the Fill-in-the-Blankist.

OTOH, my faith informs and directs everything I do, and it is so ingrained in my heart that when I think, or converse, or write, it often comes out. If I said "As a Christian, I cannot lie", that would not be implying that people in other religions think lying is OK. It's saying "I have a particular reason that compels me not to lie, and that is my Christian faith" Other people may have their own faiths compelling them not to lie or other reasons not to, and my statement wouldn't exclude that. It's just a statement about myself and my own beliefs and reasoning. Nothing to do with superiority.

This is very helpful. It's something I will try to keep in mind.

[mariekitt24]

Well, Im a Christian, so Im trying to think of myself saying it. (its not something I have ever said so Im going to pretend)
Like if I said "As a Christian, I will never cheat on my husband." That just means, because of what I believe, it will keep me from doing this thing that I otherwise might be more tempted or not feel badly about doing. Im not going to cheat, because it says in the Bible not to. Not to say thats the ONLY reason I wouldn't cheat, but in my mind, it may be the most important reason.

thats not to say that a non-Christian is going to cheat, or that they cant have their own moral reasons or whatever, and its not that Im saying Im better because Im a Christian, its just me stating what's backing up my decision not to do something.

[cappuccinosmom]

Hmm, context, let's say, someone found a wallet, and turned it into the police. In doing so, they say: "As a Fill-in-the-Blankist, I am compelled to turn this in."

For me, I would take that as "Hmmm...my flesh/selfish self is tempting me to keep this. I could use the money. But I am a Christian and that means that I would be disobeying God and his commands to me if I followed my selfish desires".

If someone of a different religion from me said that, it would never occur to me that they meant people like me *would* keep the wallet because our faith is different, nor that they meant it that their faith is superior to mine. Just that their self may be in conflict with their faith (wanting to keep the money vs. knowing it's wrong) and they're verbalizing that their faith must win out over their self.

[Liquesce]

Originally Posted by Teenytoona

Hmm, context, let's say, someone found a wallet, and turned it into the police. In doing so, they say: "As a Fill-in-the-Blankist, I am compelled to turn this in." To me it always comes across as a my religion is superior or a conversion tactic sort of statement. I'm trying to understand how it could be somethign other than that. I've heard it with a holier than thou tone, but I've heard it spoken without that tone to it. So I reckon this means there's a different way for me to percieve it, and I'm trying to keep it in mind so I won't do snap judgements in my head upon hearing such a thing.

I think it makes sense from one member of a religion to another of the same. I guess it rubs me wrong when it's from one member of a certain religion to a person of a different or a presumed different religion. For example, the cop who's recieving the wallet may be a Fill-in-the-Blankist or they may be something different, but could still hold the same values as the Fill-in-the-Blankist.

In a context like that I really think it is both a little bit of a habitual explanation that may be unnecessary but which doesn't come with any particular intent at all, and a bit of advertising. What I don't think it very often is is a statement of "X faith made me do this right thing ... which surely you wouldn't have done, you heathen."

I don't think the advertising in it often goes much farther than the level of just trying to present a good face for one's faith. I see it a lot in my own co-religionists these days. Personally more often than not I roll my eyes a bit at it (see, for example, some recent fund raising drives for Haiti that were heavily punctuated by a lot of talk of "how can we get it on the news that Muslims are organizing to raise money too?" ... TBH that really bothered me), but it's pretty plain that the intentions are to just try to leave a good impression where it is perceived that the public impression is poor, not to knock anyone else or necessarily even to proselytize.

[Teenytoona]

You know, this thread is giving me a whole lot of different ways to see this type of statement. I really appreciate it. Thank you, I"m trying to be careful about my quick internal judgements and this is certainly expanding my mind.

[Adele_Mommy]

This is an interesting question. I don't think I've ever really thought too much before about what people mean when they use that kind of expression. Now that I have thought about it I think it could be used for a few different reasons / in a few different ways.

1. It could possibly be a superiority thing - "my religion is better than yours and I am better than you because I am this religion" - but I would hope this would be the least common usage.

2. It could be a way to explain why you are doing something that others might find unexpected. Think of Susan Sarandon in Dead Man Walking talking about how she can help a criminal and advocate against the death penalty even when the person is guilty - she said she was "Trying to follow the example of Jesus Christ". I don't know if she actually said these words, but I could see her character saying something like, "As a Christian, I feel I should try to be forgiving and cannot support capital punishment."

3. As cappuccinosmom said, it can be used with people whom you know are the same religion to try to convince them of something. For example, "As Unitarian Universalists, I think we have a responsibility to protect the environment." I am UU and one of our principles is to run our congregations democratically. I have said to members of my congregation: "We are UUs. We are supposed to vote on important issues."

4. The phrase could be used to inform someone about some facet of your religion the person clearly doesn't know.
Example:
Person: Hey, do you think we could hold our anti-gay marriage rally in a room at your church?
Me: Well, as Unitarian Universalists we strongly support GLBT rights, so I'm thinking no.

[2xy]

Personally, that sort of statement leads me to believe that someone either needs to be told how to behave by some external source, or needs a reward/punishment system in place in order to behave ethically.

I don't think that lying, cheating, stealing, et cetera are good things, either. But my moral code comes from a sense of duty to my fellow man, and believing that society does not function well when its corrupt.

[Adele_Mommy]

In response to your specific example I thought of another scenario:

Desk Cop: Gee, thanks for turning this in. Most people would have just taken the money and run.
Good Samaritan: I don't know about that but, As a Fill-in-the-Blankist, I am compelled to turn this in.

[hopefulfaith]

It rubs me the wrong way, as I've always taken it in that negative light. To me it is similar to another hated phrase, "I'm the kind of person who...", where if you have to explain yourself to me that way, clearly you think I am a different sort of person who needs clarification on what your (better, superior, more awesome) values are.

I see it as a "separating" sort of phrase and have a hard time seeing it otherwise except when people use it in the sort of context that Adele_mommy is using it in example #4.

[GoBecGo]

I am not an anything-tian/im/ist, but i would turn in the wallet. Last year i found £130 in an unmarked brown envelope near my house. I figured it was probably piano-lesson money or similar and turned it in to the police. In the UK you can "claim" a reward if you hand in money and i ticked the box to decline it (because i imagined it would be really super-nice to think that sort of thing was gone forever and slightly rubbish to find someone was nice enough to turn it in, but only for their own potential gain). The reward would have been £13 (10%) and the police phoned me later to say the owner had collected and left me £15 as a thank you! Which was nice!

I digress - i think i would take it as "this is my moral reason for not doing/doing this thing i am about to do" and nothing more. The person might be being superior, or admitting to a weakness, or something else entirely, but i would try to take it as i would mean it if i said it. At the time i was handing it in i believe i said "sure, £130 would be nice, but i've been in a place where this would be whether or not i could LIVE for like 3 weeks, i just can't bring myself to keep it!" - i had lots of moral reasons to hand it in, in fact, but this was the most recent experience which had contributed to the general feeling that i should hand it in. And i mainly said it to people who were trying to convince me i should keep the money!

[Teenytoona]

2xy and hopefulfaith, yeah those are some of my initial responses to such a statement. I never find myself saying it, but in my head my response is "oh so you guys have the market on honesty, huh? and everyone else would just steal the wallet? WTH-ever" or "so you don't think someone would turn in the wallet out of sheer honesty and the thought that said person must really be giong nuts right now wondering where this is?" I also think, well those people who are declaring that they're doing this because of the religion are trying to show off. Now granted, I think there are people who do the "As a fill-in-the-blankist" as a show-off, preaching or one-upping, but I know that it's not always the case. I'm trying to see the other side to the story, in case someone's really not trying to one-up via religion. It is my opinion that if you want someone to know they "why" behind you do something, just do it, and leave the advertising out. If they're interested they'll come to you. But I concede that such a statement is not neccesarily advertising.

[cappuccinosmom]

Personally, that sort of statement leads me to believe that someone either needs to be told how to behave by some external source, or needs a reward/punishment system in place in order to behave ethically.

I see how you might view it that way.

But people's ethics vary, and people come up with all sorts of rationalizations for their varying ethics. Even if one's only ethical guideline is "don't do anything to hurt someone else", human beings are expert at rationalizing how what they're doing doesn't *really* hurt someone, even if it does. Or else justify themselves by saying other people *shouldn't* be hurt by what they're doing.

People looking to faith for guidance when it comes to ethics means they recognize in themselves a tendancy to make decisions selfishly, and wish to submit to a higher authority on the "iffy" things (stealing from a homeless man would be wrong, of course, but will a billionaire really miss that hundred bucks that just fell out of his pocket?) to be certain that they are not just rationalizing something in order to serve themselves.

I'm glad Adele-mommy gave some examples. It's not just religious fundamentalists who use the phrase. Just because someone uses it doesn't mean they're blindly doing "whatever". More likely they've thought through ethical issues very deeply and settled in a faith that tends to head in the same direction, even if it may challenge them on an issue or two.

[SunshineJ]

I can see someone saying it more as an educational statement and it not coming across as better than someone else. For example, as we follow Asatru, our kin or "clan" if you want to call it is extremely important and we tend to do a LOT for each other. Some may think it's odd, and if someone were to comment that we spend an awfully lot of time with d&r, I could see replying "as Heathens one of our top priorities is our kindred, so yes, we may spend more time with them than some would expect". That's just an off the top example, but hopefully you get what I mean!

[2xy]

Originally Posted by cappuccinosmom

People looking to faith for guidance when it comes to ethics means they recognize in themselves a tendancy to make decisions selfishly, and wish to submit to a higher authority on the "iffy" things (stealing from a homeless man would be wrong, of course, but will a billionaire really miss that hundred bucks that just fell out of his pocket?) to be certain that they are not just rationalizing something in order to serve themselves.

Sure, but most people who subscribe to religion are also looking for personal gain, whether it's Heaven, being close to their deity of choice, avoiding eternal damnation, et cetera.

People don't really do anything selflessly. Even feeling good about performing a certain act is still a reward. That's nature's way of motivating us.

[Purple Sage]

Originally Posted by hopefulfaith

It rubs me the wrong way, as I've always taken it in that negative light. To me it is similar to another hated phrase, "I'm the kind of person who...", where if you have to explain yourself to me that way, clearly you think I am a different sort of person who needs clarification on what your (better, superior, more awesome) values are.

I see it as a "separating" sort of phrase and have a hard time seeing it otherwise except when people use it in the sort of context that Adele_mommy is using it in example #4.

Regarding the bolded part: I used to feel this way, but I've learned (slowly and with much difficulty) that it's rarely the case. DH and I have had many arguments where he's said something about himself and I took it to mean something negative about me. Well, he wasn't talking about me at all. He was talking about himself and only himself.

So, in the case of the OP, I would take whatever was said to mean exactly what was said and nothing more. It definitely feels better not to make any assumptions about implied meanings.

[anj_rn]

I think it depends on what the they do. If it was a common morality issue (killing, stealing, adultery) I think it would be an odd thing to say. If it was a non-mainstream act (i.e. modest dress, special diets, abstinence), I do not think it would be abnormal. But it depends also on context. It is not a phrase I have ever used. I have said, the (fill in your religous body) teaches that ____ is accptable/unacceptable behavior.

[hrsmom]

It might also just be something that someone has heard said, so they say it without really thinking about it. I know the first time I heard someone say "we're ________ so we don't _______" I thought "well, la di dah!" But it could even represent something that they've struggled with (I think the example I first heard was swearing) and they are pleased/proud/grateful/thankful to God that they no longer struggle with that. Some examples seem more self-serving than others!

[Smokering]

I've used it in a faintly apologetic way, as in "I'm not just weird or trying to cause a fuss, but...". Like "As a Christian, I don't work on Sundays". Otherwise potential bosses might think I wanted to have half the weekend off just to chill out.

It can be a kind of shorthand for "this is really important to me and I don't want to discuss it", too. "No thanks, I don't eat pork" might be met with "No, try it, it's really good", whereas "No thanks: I'm Jewish, I don't eat pork" is more likely to be met with "Oh, OK, sorry". People tend, even today, to be more respectful of a belief if it comes across as religious rather than just personal. There are times when the simplest way to say "No, not interested" in a crystal-clear way is to invoke religion. That way people are usually worried about having offended you rather than trying to change your mind. (Example: "I'm going to give the stag night a miss, there are strippers and I'm a Christian" is probably less open for debate than other excuses, which might provoke arguments about the legitimacy of the stripping industry, the likelihood of one's wife finding out, or the disappointment of the groom-to-be. You know?)

The phrase tends to annoy me, but only because I've heard it used for several (in my view) non sequiters. "I'm a Christian, I don't read Harry Potter" or "I'm a Christian, so I don't drink". Those people may very well be making those choices as a direct expression of their faith, but I don't think Christian = non-Harry Potter-reading or teetotalling, you know? So that irks me.