They started it. He who sows the wind, and all that.
Actually the first co-author of he Official Politically Correct Dictionary and Handbook is Henry Beard. That’s right, many of the terms bandied about as “political correctness gone mad” are from the bloke who wrote *Miss Piggy’s Guide to Life *.
This is a terrific thread. Good for you Zoe. And Wendell? - you’re a stalwart.
Careless adoption of things like the term “Jesus Horses” is dangerous stuff. Sure, it’s not that sillier than some things that Creationists really say, but it’s easy to forget that it’s not really true. At that point you’re already at “it doesn’t matter if it’s quite true if you’re on the right side”. If you want to stay in control of your own opinions you have to be vigilant against that kind of shit.
I agree with The King of Soup in that
People are due respect as opinion-holders and so is the truth. So if a person holds a view which is mostly nonsense the truth requires that their view be demolished with honour and their personhood requires that it be done respectfully. And if the view is avowedly held without support of reason you’ve got to leave it there.
But in a political situation where reciprocity is unlikely to be forthcoming, I’m inclined to be less kind. I’m quite willing to ridicule someone’s view in a public forum in order to be persuasive. But not to lie. Yeah, it’s bad tactics, but as much as that it’s giving hostages to self-deception.
See, I’m not getting this at all. If a few goofy-ass people actually believe that the term “jesus horse” is actually a common christian phrase, do these same people also believe that Jon Stewart is actually a news man?
I agree, but it is a small problem at best. Honestly, **Zoe ** should have just posted this in MPSIMS as a public service announcement and not in the pit, insulting another poster and climbing up on her “Southern” Cross again.
I like the ‘Talking Snake’ part, can we start using that as another shorthand? 
Jim
Another misread! Shari Lewis died, but
Lamb Chop lives!
Tris
Yeah, but only in the same way that the Three Stooges “continued” with Shemp. How many people think about Shemp when they hear “The Three Stooges”?
To be fair, Curly replaced Shemp first.
You’re still not getting it. The phrase “jesus horses” is not literal. It’s code for “people who discount evolution in favor of mythology”. LOTS of people believe this. The phrase does not mean that ANYONE thinks that christians believe that people rode around on saddled dinosaurs. It means the same thing as “Invisible Sky Pixie” or any other catch phrase that mocks those who believe in christian magic or the concept of a young Earth. The fact that a couple of humor impaired people are passing it off as gospel doesn’t mean the rest of us believe that christians believe that man rode dinosaurs.
Not that this was directed at me, but why should I ‘respect’ an opinion that makes absolutely no sense and goes against everything mankind has come to understand about our world? Do I respect your right to believe it? Certainly. However, I have no social obligation to respect your concept of god or christianity as something that should be taken seriously any more than you need to respect my opinion that it’s all a load of crap. And I think you’re being overly sensitive when you refer to jokes as “lies.” No one is tossing you to the lions here.
So you’re saying that there aren’t a lot of people who believe Dinos and people co-existed? Because your statement about SNL starting the use of Jesus Horses has nothing at all to do with what Kalhoun said… which was:
(bolding mine)
Yeah, I’m still a little confused about this thread.
Are the “anti-saying-jesus-horse” people claiming that:
-
No one uses the term “Jesus Horse” in a serious way, or
-
No one seriously believes humans and dinosaurs co-existed?
Because I’d agree that few if any people use the term in a serious way. I don’t agree that few if any people believe humans and dinosaurs co-existed.
So, if the claim is that I can’t reference “Jesus Horses” because of 1, I’d say that the claim is ridiculous. We make up funny shorthand for people’s opinions all the time.
If the claim is that I can’t reference “Jesus Horses” because of 2, I’d say that I’m willing to be convinced that the incidence of belief in a Flintstonian history is so rare that I don’t need an actual term for it.
Maybe we should call people who believe that dinosaurs and people co-existed “Barnies” after the character from The Flinstones; e.g., “Those people who vote for Huckabee are just a bunch of Barnies”.
Okay, so change it to Brian Henson taking over Kermit after Jim died. The Muppets haven’t done as well since Jim’s untimely demise.
That sounds right to me. Where do you think white folks come from?
I keed, I keed.
I don’t really have much to add here, but “Jesus horses” has got to be one of the funniest things I’ve heard in a long time, and this thread is absolutely hilarious. Almost every post has cracked me up :).
So, Creationist Christians don’t use the term Jesus horses. Big deal. It’s funny…probably because with all the other wacky notions YECs hold it seems plausible Jesus horses would be one of them.
Now get off your high Jesus horse and evolve a sense of humor.
So in a perverse way, the OP has contributed to the perpetuation of the very idiom she was denouncing! The irony bush, it burns!
Yet it is not consumed…
The Googles do NOTHING!
White folks have no soul? How dare you, sir?! I think Mr. Tom Jones disproves your point.
I was actually looking for something incredibly bad for the link with Tom Jones to make the joke work, but he nailed that song, and ya gotta admit, Tom Jones had blue eyed soul down
The persistence with which some posters are trying to elevate a whimsical (and frankly pretty inoffensive) joke to the status of a serious and slanderous accusation almost makes me weep.
Not for the humorlessness of this response (losing cause, gave it up long ago), nor even for its utter dishonesty and hypocrisy (sure it’s just a joke, and they know it, but if they pretend they think it’s serious they can paint their opponents as liars and libelers), but for its sheer dimwitted insistence that making a joke somehow violates the inherent dignity of man and is beyond the pale. This makes creationists seem somewhat more fragile, more childlike, than I’m willing to believe. Folks, being ridiculed for your ignorance is not a violation of your human rights, your right to your opinion does not include a mandate that informed people take them or you seriously, and, Wendell Wagner’s bland assertions aside, some people can be influenced positively by the fact that while their sensible thoughts are respected, their sillier ideas are mocked. Some people can’t, it is true, but since these folks are immune to facts as well, there’s no reason to cater to them.
When creationists, chortling, asked scientists whether it was through their mother or father that they claimed descent from an ape, it got laughs. It was insulting (far more so than the line that’s got the OP so excited), but it was a joke. The scientists did not whine and cry and claim they’d been literally accused of being the descendent of a bestial relationship. They just went on presenting their argument. And won.
Creationists, you’re fighting a battle for hearts and minds and souls here. If you believe in human dignity, get some, and toughen up.