|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 372 responses total. |
orinoco
|
|
response 250 of 372:
| 
Jun 14 18:47 UTC 2002 |
Where the Ex-Undatable One works in Yellowstone, there's a large chapter of
Campus Crusade for Christ who all came out together to spend the summer
working. She gets a lot of grief from some of her co-workers for being a
Godless Buddhist (which is like a Godless Communist, only with more incense),
and spend a shift or two every once in a while being told she is going to
hell. On the other hand, even the Christian employees who work at Yellowstone
seem to have a pretty low opinion of the Crusaders, and are sometimes openly
nasty to them.
Thinking about it, I guess that's a very minor example of people suffering
harm because of religious prejudice, but the damage is evenly distributed.
If all of T.E.U.O.'s co-workers gave her shit for being a Godless Buddhist,
then I'd say she really was being harmed by religious prejudice. That would
be a pretty miserable situation.
But really, it would be so miserable mostly because she wouldn't be able
to escape so easily. Most people aren't so isolated, or so stuck in their
job. Maybe that's part of what makes the U.S. such a good place to be a
religious minority. I get the impression that in most of the country, you
don't have to go very far to find people who -- even if they don't approve
of your religion -- will gladly go out for the evening and have a beer or
two without telling you you're going straight to hell.
|
eskarina
|
|
response 251 of 372:
|
Jun 14 18:51 UTC 2002 |
People get harrassed for being whatever religion they are, too. I'm not at
all convinvced that the game is particularly tilted in anyone's favor.
I had an interesting experience at work today. One of the newer employees
said to me "Goddess bless you for making the coffee". I was a bit taken
aback, as I felt uncomfortable being blessed by the goddess, and asked if she
was a pagan. She said no. I asked her why she said that, then, but the
conversation veered onto why she hates Christianity and I got so enthralled
with that topic that I forgot about the whole Goddess thing.
Looking at that I would like to add that I meant no association between the
top 2 paragraphs
But the goddess thing still makes me curious. Why refer to a deity you don't
believe in?
|
void
|
|
response 252 of 372:
|
Jun 14 18:57 UTC 2002 |
Bruce, Francis Bellamy was a socialist. Socialism and communism are not
necessarily the same thing and you know it.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 253 of 372:
|
Jun 14 18:59 UTC 2002 |
Given our current government, how can you say that the game isn't tilted
in anyone's favor? Look at Bush's rhetoric about faith, to say nothing of
Ashcroft's rabid fundamentalism.
When was the last time we had a non-Christian President or VP? Do you
know?
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 254 of 372:
|
Jun 14 18:59 UTC 2002 |
Void slipped. I doubt he makes the distinction.
|
oval
|
|
response 255 of 372:
|
Jun 14 19:06 UTC 2002 |
funny since he is more socialist than he probably knows.
|
orinoco
|
|
response 256 of 372:
|
Jun 14 19:13 UTC 2002 |
(I say things like "Jesus H. Christ, that must have hurt!" and "Where's
the goddamn stapler?" all the time. I don't say "God bless you" when
someone sneezes, but I could totally see myself doing that. I'm about as
far towards atheism as you can be and still count as agnostic.
Of course, I picked up all those phrases from other people. I'd be less
likely to pick up "Goddess bless you" or "Siddhartha Q. Gautama, that must
have hurt," just because those aren't terribly popular phrases. But all
it would take is one or two good friends who said those things, and I'd
pick them up without really even trying.
Add to that the fact that your co-worker admits to some pretty strong
anti-Christian feelings, and I think what she said makes perfect sense.)
|
brighn
|
|
response 257 of 372:
|
Jun 14 19:15 UTC 2002 |
#246> Two obvious points:
(1) The Declaration is not a legal document. It was written before the
formation of the United States, it was not voted on later by politicians in
the United States. References to God in the Declaration are relevant only to
matters of this country's philosophy, not to matters of law.
(2) The Declaration does not refer to a single Deity who is the only Deity,
or who is named "God." It refers to "the God of Nature" -- from which one
could easily infer that there are multiple Gods, and Jefferson is only
speaking of one -- and [man's] "Creator," which doesn't infer anything at all
about the presence or absence of other Deities. "One nation under God" says
that there is one nation which is united under one, single God. I know it's
difficult for monotheists to grasp the subtle differences between JEfferson's
reference and that of the Pledge, but it *is* there, and Jefferson was being
very deliberate in his phrasing.
|
brighn
|
|
response 258 of 372:
|
Jun 14 19:17 UTC 2002 |
#256> In "Leprechaun 2," there was the rule that if the leprechaun's chosen
human bride sneezed three times and no-one say, "God bless you," he was free
to force her into marriage. I found that interesting because that's actually
related to WHY we say, "God bless you" (it's a magickal spell intended to
protect the spirit while it's been expelled from the body by the force of the
sneeze, until the spirit can make its way back to the body). (It was also
interesting because the SO of the woman kept saying "Gesundheit" instead,
which actually comes from the same tradition but doesn't involve referring
to God.
|
void
|
|
response 259 of 372:
|
Jun 14 19:37 UTC 2002 |
I've noticed that if I say, "Bless you" just as someone is winding up
for a sneeze, they don't. Has anyone else noticed that?
|
eskarina
|
|
response 260 of 372:
|
Jun 14 20:32 UTC 2002 |
re 253: In my daily life, it doesn't seem like the game is particularly
tilted in anyone's favor as far as someone being the dominant religion of
people in general, or someone being the religion that's okay and someone else
not. I also walk in university/liberal circles, so that could be a factor.
I know a lot more people who don't have particular loyalty to any religion,
or don't care, than who do care. And even for lots of people who do profess
Christianity, it isn't a big part of their lives.
I would also dare to say that "fundamentalism", as it involves toughening
immigration things, keeping anti-hate legislation out of Congress, boycotting
Disney, etc, has very little to do with Christianity, and even less to do with
Christianity as I practice it.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 261 of 372:
|
Jun 14 20:46 UTC 2002 |
If you're part of the dominant group, it's a lot harder for you to realize
how biased things can be in favor of the dominant group. As a white man,
I didn't understand how biased society is in favor of white men until people
who weren;'t white, or male, pointed it out.
Please realize, I'm not blaming you for it -- you seem like a very
tolerant (heh, no, let's not go into that argument) person. But this
country has a heavy pro-Christian bias, even in the actions of its
allegedly secular government.
|
mary
|
|
response 262 of 372:
|
Jun 14 21:27 UTC 2002 |
I have fun being an athiest. It's a dirty pleasure for the
most part but if the Christians all gave it up tomorrow I'd
be disappointed.
|
jp2
|
|
response 263 of 372:
|
Jun 14 21:40 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 264 of 372:
|
Jun 14 21:46 UTC 2002 |
Assholes.
|
mary
|
|
response 265 of 372:
|
Jun 14 21:48 UTC 2002 |
I have stopped standing during the Star Spangled Banner or when
a group recites the Pledge of Allegiance. It's a quiet way of
protesting some of what our government has been doing and not
doing both at home and abroad.
|
russ
|
|
response 266 of 372:
|
Jun 15 00:56 UTC 2002 |
Re #243: Aw, darn. I know some people who never would be missed... ;-)
Re #246: Why wouldn't I have a problem saying it, Bruce? It asks
me to declare my implicit belief in something that has nothing to
do with either the flag or the Constitution, and it establishes
monotheism as implicitly endorsed while polytheism, atheism,
agnosticism, Buddhism and the like are not.
Furthermore, since you KEEP MISSING THE POINT, I'll lay it out for
you again: You can pray anywhere you please. "As long as there
are math tests, there will be prayer in schools" and I don't think
for one minute that people won't seek strength or calm wherever
they will. What must NOT be done... what you SHOULD see as offensive...
is placing your prayer in a public recitation at a secular function.
Because if you can do it, someone else can come along and do it again
later and that time it might be Muslims. Or the Satanists.
That's why we have checks, balances and outright prohibitions about what
the government can do, because we cannot assume that the people running
things will be sufficiently enlightened to avoid trampling everyone's
rights just because they hold a government job. If the Pledge cannot
respect people of all faiths and of none (as it did before it was
altered), it should be dropped.
Frankly, I think that George H.W. Bush should have been forced to resign
the presidency immediately after he made his infamous declaration about
atheists. Then again, I think that most recent holders and candidates
have been unfit for various reasons too... perhaps it's a good thing I
am not vetting the candidates for President, we might never get one.
Re #251: I occasionally use expressions I've learned from Wiccan and
other folk. I don't believe in any of it, I sprinkle them into speech
for variety. The parking prayer is particularly humorous.
|
lowclass
|
|
response 267 of 372:
|
Jun 15 03:10 UTC 2002 |
As for Christain Presidents? I was kindah curious if it only required
some serious public appearances in church, and nothing else. Frankly, if
they actually believed the ten commandments, and lived by the teachings of
the bible, we'd be in less trouble.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 268 of 372:
|
Jun 15 04:53 UTC 2002 |
Really? What about "Thou Shalt Have No Other Gods Before Me," and all the
stuff in Leviticus about slavery, etc.?
|
eskarina
|
|
response 269 of 372:
|
Jun 15 17:16 UTC 2002 |
I suspect he was more referring to the stuff about lying and cheating, and
in particular all the emphasis on respecting the alien among you.
besides, in a time of slavery, what is so wrong with believing that slaves
should respect their masters? Paul wrote quite a bit about respecting the
government you are under, and he lived under Nero, who falsely blamed the
christians for burning down rome.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 270 of 372:
|
Jun 15 19:14 UTC 2002 |
What's wrong with it is living by those teachings *now*, which is what
lowclass was saying would be a good idea.
|
oval
|
|
response 271 of 372:
|
Jun 15 21:07 UTC 2002 |
i say we all live by the teachings of the I Ching and make homeland security
an open source project.
|
bru
|
|
response 272 of 372:
|
Jun 16 00:34 UTC 2002 |
I said...
Of course, if you are a communist, you would have no problem saying it anyway
since you would not believe in God.
If you are a communist seeking to hide in a predominantly Christian culture,
you would have no trouble saying it.
Is that better?
|
russ
|
|
response 273 of 372:
|
Jun 16 12:06 UTC 2002 |
So let me get this straight, Bruce: You think that a phrase which
was put into the PoA to annoy Communists is completely useless in
that regard, but it should remain there despite the fact that it
is offensive to some loyal Americans and is an affront to the
principles enshrined in our Constitution?
|
bru
|
|
response 274 of 372:
|
Jun 16 19:02 UTC 2002 |
I think it is a totally useless phrase, yes. Do I think it should be removed?
That is hard to explain. I like it there, or at least have no problem with
it being there, but I would have no problem if it were removed.
I pledge allegiance, to the flag, of the United States of America, and to the
Republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisable, with liberty
and justice for all.
I pledge allegiance, to the flag, of the United States of America, and to the
Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisable, with liberty and
justice for all.
AS faaar as I am concerned, if you are a loyal american, you should be able
to say the one of your choice, with no Fear of retaliation. We should accept
BOTH as legitimate and quit arguing about something so petty. It is a very
petty arguement, isn't it?
Some people want it, some do not. Make your choice and ignore the other, but
accept it.
Lets try this.
Do you go to the weddings of freinds and relatives? If so, how do you handle
prayer in the church? Do you say the prayer, or ignore it? What does a
christian do at a Jewish funeral?
We all, I believe, get invited to a myriad of cross religious ceremonies in
our lives. If you refuse to go, you fail to support those you know and love,
or to get clossure in your life, to to satisfy their needs. SO what do you
do? You cannot pray with them, but you can still pray for them.
In my version of Lutheranism, I am not even allowed to pray with other
christians unless "I" am leading the prayer. I also am not allowed to take
or give communion with any other christians denominations, something that has
always bothered my wife.
So I say my own prayer, or I keep silent adn mearely stand there during the
prayer. That gives my freinds my support without interfering with either
religion.
That is the way we should all handle the religious thing in our government.
The God of the Jews, The Christians, and the Moslems is the SAME God. So I
have no problem if an Islamic Cleric wants to say a prayer at a football game,
or if a Jewish rabbi wants to chant a prayer, or if a Southerm Baptist wants
to say a prayer. It is all going to the same place, and I can either
participate or remain silent as I will.
And all the non-believers can do the same.
Ignore it, and if something ever happens that turns one religion into a state
religion, be assured I and millions of others will stand there with you to
oppose it.
|