Um, I don’t believe calling a spade a spade automatically invokes a double standard. If someone were to significantly disturb me without regard, either on an airline flight or hurling insults at me on the street, calling them a “religious zealot” or “homophobic bigot” isn’t out of line. Also, regardless of the OP’s prejudices, I don’t believe anyone is telling him or any Christian not to believe what they believe, nor to not do what they do, but when it directly negatively impacts someone else, they should at the very least keep it to themselves.
I’ll be the first to say I know many, many Christians who most assuredly do not qualify as “arrogant.” The first two examples are from this very board - Polycarp and Trisk.
Actually I had read your OP, including your pathetic disclaimer at the end which did not impress me.
Your critisisms of the “fundies” was that they wore matching t-shirts, that they spent money on a trip that they could have spent on charity, that they expressed the view, which you think is idiotic, that God had saved them from some extra delay, and that they prayed out loud. Big deal.
The fact that you consider praying out loud in public the equivalent of having sex in public says all one needs to know about your attitude towards fundamentalists. (And probably religion as well. By your own words, you find public expression of religion worse than a planeload of screaming babies.) Basically you detest fundamentalists, and don’t mind gays. Other people detest gays and don’t mind fundamentalists. Same thing.
Espirix,
The t-shirt you described having seen is indeed obnoxious. (In fact, it’s so rediculously conceited and idiotic that, upon rereading your post and finding that you did not specifically claim to have seen it, I wondered if it might not be an actual t-shirt). So you did indeed call a spade a spade.
But consider a post in which the OP expresses his disgust at seeing two gays holding hands in public. (“I don’t mind if they do it in the privacy of their own home, but…” etc.) A series of posts follow in which various people describe the times they’ve had their sensibilities offended in a similar, or worse, manner by “these disgusting gays”. Then the following post, parallel to your own:
"My all time worst gay story:
There were these two gay guys around the corner who turned out to be child molesters, luring kids into their houses and abusing them.
Sicko perverts!"
I am sure you would be the first to point out that the vast majority of gays are not child molesters etc. etc.
Point being that if when the topic of Fundamentalist Christians comes up the reaction is to begin harping about the bunch of idiots, it is not enough to clarify when pressed on it, that you don’t mean every one.
Regarding your previous post, I agree with you that a person has every right to be annoyed at those who would harrass him. This carries no negative implication about his character. But in this case, it is clear that no one was being harrassed in any way. What Satan, and many other posters to the Pit thread, claimed to find offensive, was of Fundamentalist Christians BEING Fundamentalist Christians in a blatent and public way. All these people are bigots, and, in some cases, hypocrites as well.
[Text of Satan’s post deleted upon his reconsideration of inflammatory content and his later, more civil, repost of his argument. I’m leaving the actual post (but not the content) with this explanation so we don’t all look completely nutso for talking about something that’s not there. --Gaudere]
Innocuously sitting and praying with your loved one in a public place might get a glance, but certainly is not worth getting all hepped up about. However, Satan was specifically talking about people who were praying out loud, and in turn causing a public disturbance because it, well, distrubed the public (and note there were people other than him that agreed they were making a disturbance). A crying baby should be taken from a movie theatre, people should not have sex in public, and if you pray loud enough to disturb the people around you, you’re going to get chastized.
Actually, it was a button, and I have seen people wearing it. Keep in mind, though, that I don’t voice my opinion to them, nor do I demand they remove it. I still think they’re arrogant.
These people were not doing something that didn’t impact those around them. If two men were holding hands and taunting those around them, then I wouldn’t be particularly fond of them myself, but just holding hands, like just praying to oneself, is nothing of note.
Then the following post, parallel to your own:
Yup. But once again, I’m not telling anyone else how to behave nor how to think. If I offended someone with my comments, then they have every right to express themselves, and I welcome it, although I highly doubt that I’d feel any different (just like someone might not change their mind because I cite them relevant facts about homosexuality). This is, after all, a public message board whereon we discuss many sides of many different issues, is it not?
I’ve said time and time again in other threads that I do not consider all Christians “Jeezers” (aka radical right fundamentalists). My apologies if you didn’t already know this, but since you didn’t, you asked, and I told you so. I don’t think it’s necessary to put a disclaimer on every post.
I wholeheartedly disagree. If these people had been on my plane, I would have either talked to the stewardess about moving seats (to allow them to “be fundamentalist Christian”) and if I was unable to that, I would politely ask them to stop disturbing me. If they took offense, quite frankly I’d have gotten a little more forceful. Luckily Satan didn’t get stuck next to them.
If you were going on a plane and a bunch of Pagans were drumming, would you nod and smile and grit your teeth from LA to NY? I doubt it.
I forgot I was not in The Pit when I made that post. I am sorry for my bad form by calling him an idiot. However, he was insulting me in a much more insidious manner by my own arbitrary definition - I’d rather you call me a silly name than claim I am something I am most definitely not, which is what was being done here. And I overreacted. I will not let it happen again!
Yer pal,
Satan
I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
Three months, two weeks, one day, 16 hours, 35 minutes and 54 seconds.
4267 cigarettes not smoked, saving $533.45.
Life saved: 2 weeks, 19 hours, 35 minutes.
Good. If you wish to repost your argument without the insults (it might keep this discussion more civil), I can delete the text of the previous post. If I tried to edit out the insults myself, there would be about three words left.
Does this mean that you’re not really my pal? And I thought…oh…
Esprix,
Does this mean that you would not consider such a poster to be bigoted? I would. And I suspect you would as well.
I would also consider someone bigoted who responded to a thread attacking black people by relating about the time that they got mugged by a couple of black guys. Or someone who responded to a thread attacking Jewish people by relating an anecdote about how they got ripped off by some Jew. Even if one acknowledges that not all of “those people” (insert group here) are the same, the fact that one choses to represent a group by its most obnoxious and offensive members is a form of bigotry.
I should note that I am not attempting to hurt the feelings of any posters here (some of whom seem to be far more sensitive than one would have assumed). However, there is a point to be made, which is that many people who call for increased tolerence are not actually true believers in tolerence. Instead they believe in tolerence to the extent that they believe it will further acceptance of their own group, or other groups that they favor. Someone who would call for tolerence for one group while trashing another would do well to reexamine his true attitudes.
Hey! I take umbrage here at your lumping all of us “idiots” together!
Just because ONE person (an Izzy, say) acts and talks like that does NOT mean all of us are like that and similar.!
You are so narrow-minded.
Please judge folks by who they are personally, without putting EVERYONE into the same category(all Taurus’ are alike!)
Thank you very much!
That breaks my heart. I do live to impress you, you know.
**
I did not criticize them for this. I commented on it twice, however.
First in the OP of my thread so that people who were not there would know the scene (was I judgmental of the shirts?) and also above where I pointed out that they were labelling themselves, which again I do not have a problem with, but you sure seem to have a problem with me accurately reporting it.
**
A point which I retracted myself in the same sentance as nit-picking and superfluous, showing myself in a negative light.
**
I found it not only repugnant, but it also goes against the Bible that they expound upon. I found it interesting and fascinating that they went to such lengths to go against the Bible. Something I pointed out.
**
Well, it was a big enough deal for me to react in the manner I did. Not a big enough deal where I wanted to, say, shoot them. But enough of a big deal where I didn’t want to ignore it.
Besides, I can do the same to you here: You didn’t like my post? Big felching deal.
**
I was using an analogy, the best one to relate ones religious orientation with ones sexual orientation. If you can think of a more apt one, I’m all ears to hear it, and most likely, I would disapprove of it as well in public as well.
Again, you do not answer my question which whether you know the difference between saying “I don’t like what this group of people does in the privacy of their own homes” and “This group of people is in my face annoying me directly.”
Why don’t you answer this question? Still don’t know the difference?
**
Ah, a literalist.
Well, yes, if you take what I said literally, I also prefer a sky-jacking to this.
Let me introduce you to the concept of a joke sometime. Exaggeration for comic effect is a time-honored tradition among humorists.
**
I am at a loss here as to how you conclude this. It is not worth my further comment, although I will say that I have a great relationship with two siblings, one who is married to a pastor and one who is a youth minister, so your blanket statements are not supported by any evidence.
In any event, I explained myself quite well for anyone with a modicum of logical comprehension to understand the difference between the two. If you cannot see the difference between the two, that’s your problem.
Yer pal,
Satan
I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
Three months, two weeks, one day, 17 hours, 36 minutes and 35 seconds.
4269 cigarettes not smoked, saving $533.67.
Life saved: 2 weeks, 19 hours, 45 minutes.
If somebody were to go on about a gay guy hitting on them when they weren’t interested, I wouldn’t consider them a bigot at all. If someone were to complain about a man and a woman making out in a public place, I wouldn’t consider them a bigot either. And if someone’s going to complain that a bunch of rude, inconsiderate people made public spectacles of themselves and purposely made everyone around them feel uncomfortable (let alone being trapped with them in an airplane), I wouldn’t call them a bigot, either. So if you would complain about those Pagan drummers, would you be a bigot?
The thread most assuredly does not talk about all Christians, or even all Fundamentalists, but rather about a small bunch of religious zealots inconveniencing a lot of people because they had little regard for anyone but themselves.
OK, now you’re a bigot. Seriously, though, I don’t care for the implication.
On the whole, I find your recharacterization of the tenor and context of your words disingenous. However, there no purpose in rehashing it, as anyone may visit the Pit and judge for themselves.
I do wish to retract the following
to which you responded
In this, you are correct. My apologies for the incorrect interpretation of your words, which you clearly did not mean literally.
See my earlier post addressed to Esprix for the purpose of my post. But if it will make your little heart feel any better, you may rest assured that I will not be losing any sleep over any posts by you (or anyone else).
I would agree with this if the thread was by a group of people who had collectively shared in the encounter. As it is, the thread is about a group of people sharing their Fundamentalist horror stories. I believe a similar thread, but with the horror stories about blacks or gays or Jews etc. would be received quite differently.
I disagree, mostly because most blacks, gays or Jews don’t accost people at airports or make long plane flights miserable for their co-passengers. Besides, I don’t believe Satan said anything about what race those people might have been - it was their behavior, not their ethnicity, that was the disturbance. This is one difference between Fundamentalists and those you example.
And, hey, if somebody got offended by some militant homosexuals, they have every right to vent, call them bigots, or get called bigots in return. Personally, I’ve got some whopper feminazilesbian stories to tell you, if you want to hear 'em. (But, of course, I wouldn’t be speaking about all lesbians.)
Something seems to have gotten lost along the way. I’ll try to be more clear.
Making disturbances at airports is one example of offensive behaviour. There are also other examples of offensive behaviour. Some of these behaviours are engaged in by some members of various ethnic groups.
Thus the thread in which posters can share their various examples of offensive behaviour by Fundamentalists is not different from a thread in which posters can share the various horrors they’ve undergone at the hands of blacks etc.
I won’t dignify the rest of your comments with replies. However, this needs to be responded to:
The examples of various examples of offensive behavior from Fundamentalists is only complained about because they are annoying those who do not chare their views.
As for the various horror stories, please note that nobody posted there and said, “A bunch of fundies did this in their own church.” Every post there is about PEOPLE who did stuff that was ANNOYING (and mostly unBiblical if you get right down to it) directly to them or in their presense.
If my thread complained about any of the following things which are common at the airport and/or airplanes:
[ul]
[li]Businessmen getting air rage.[/li][li]An obese person in the seat next to me who lifts the armrest and squishes me.[/li][li]A rude stewardess.[/li][li]A pilot blathering away about nothing.[/li][li]Crappy airline food.[/li][/ul]
…Does this mean that I am against all businessmen, all obese people, all stewardesses, all pilots and all food?
No.
So, why is it that I point out that I was bothered by a ground of fundies the same as being homophobic?
And as I said in the disclaimer, if a group of atheists did the same thing, I would have complained just as much. Sorry that you didn’t like my little disclaimer, but it’s true, and the reason you don’t like it is because it shoots down everything you are trying to say, now doesn’t it?
Yer pal,
Satan
I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
Three months, two weeks, one day, 19 hours, 58 minutes and 43 seconds.
4273 cigarettes not smoked, saving $534.16.
Life saved: 2 weeks, 20 hours, 5 minutes.
As you have chosen to only dignify one of my comments with a reply, it’s a shame that you should have misunderstood that one comment so completely. I will endeavor to help you with this.
The comment to which you refer was directed to Esprix, not to yourself. Unlike with your complaints, the behaviour described by Esprix in his post to the Pit thread was extraordinarily arrogant and indisputably offensive. I agree that his characterization of the wearers of such slogans is an apt one.
My point to him therefore did not focus on the justness of being offended at the behaviour described. He, and you, would have every justification to be offended at the activity that he described. And there are many other activities that have been engaged in by various Fundamentalist that are equally offensive.
However, there are activities that have been engaged in by members of every group that are offensive. But to make a thread whose link is offenses suffered at the hands of this particular group is to engage in stereotyping.
As one of many possible examples, I chose blacks. There are many people in this country who have been robbed, assaulted raped and murdered by black people. Most people would find an experience of this sort as unpeasant, or more so, than the sufferings you and others have undergone at the hands of the Fundamentalists. Nonetheless, you will agree that a thread titled “Get these black people out of here” and filled with stories by various posters detailing how they had been robbed and assaulted by black people would be bigotry. Even if factual, by limiting it to offensive behaviour by blacks, it implies that such behaviour typifies black people.
Even a disclaimer at the end (“of course I know many fine black people”) does not change what is being done - holding up black people in general as being violent thugs (with some exceptions).
So too, a thread filled with various unrelated examples of obnoxious behaviour by fundamentalists is implying that such behaviour typifies fundamentalists, even if a disclaimer is helpfully provided.
(This paragraph is pertinent; trust me) When you have signed a lease, and thereby agreed not to allow your goldfish to bark after 7:00 PM (having agreed you will not have a dog or cat), pledged your life savings and the pound of flesh nearest your heart to restoration of the property should you cause any damage, agreed that you will give formal written notice to the landlord if anyone visits you for longer than 20 seconds, that the red maple in your backyard planted by the landlord’s sainted grandmother 70 years ago will be saved even before your wife and children in case of natural disaster, and whatever other strange clauses the landlord wants in the lease, what is it that you as tenant get out of that lease? Answer: The right to quiet enjoyment of the premises. It is your privilege, in exchange for the rent, to live your life as you choose on the premises you rent, so long as you do not unduly disturb the neighbors, damage the property, etc.
Now, you have some but not all of these rights in public. If you choose to lounge around nude, so long as you are not flashing the neighbor kids, that is your privilege. If you choose to have fundamentalist Bible studies, have mad passionate sex with Ed Asner (Hi, Sqrl!:)), conduct esbats or exorcisms, print a samizdat newsletter debunking all religion, or barbecue aardvarks, it is your life on your own property. In public, you are obliged to conduct yourself in a general manner not disturbing to your fellow man, subject to some obvious exceptions. You are, for example, privileged to protest what you consider unfair. You are not privileged to make that protest into a disturbance of the peace. You are free to evangelize in behalf of your religion, and others are privileged to reject your attempt. You may not be loud or obnoxious except in venues where such behavior is the accepted norm. (Complaining about earsplitting cheers emitted by someone 20 feet away at a sports event is inappropriate, while complaining about them at an interment is quite appropriate.)
And at long last, I get to my point. There are civilized standards that remain valid in year 2000 for conducting oneself in public. There are people who transgress them. If I were to encounter a group of conservative Christians praying quietly together, I would not be offended. If I were confined in an enclosed space (the air flight mentioned above) with them, and they chose to dominate the social atmosphere with their prayer service, and I had no forewarning that they were doing so (as in, “I got a special deal through WordofGod Charter Flights, a Christian business”), then I would have grounds for complaint. If two gay men live their lives together in private, no problem. If they hold hands, or exchange a quick kiss in public on rejoining each other (the example being drawn from Andrew Tobias’ note on Barney Frank greeting his life partner after a flight back to DC), no problem. If I’m taking my three “honorary grandchildren” (aged 8-4) to the beach and two people of whatever gender are making out on the beach, they’ve crossed the line.
If I’m reading Satan et al. correctly, the agenda item would seem to be that while gays are quite willing to let fundamentalists live their lives in peace, so long as they decline to hassle them, the reverse is usually not true. (And we all know exceptions to every phrase of the last sentence, so let’s not commit orogeny on molehills.)
As I said and you have not (can’t is more like it) respond to: My original post said very distinctly that it was not about all Fundies, all religious people, and religion in general. I said that if an atheist group did the same thing, I would complain about them as well.
You do not answer to this, Boogerheal Catastrophe, because it takes away your whole argument.
You also do not answer to the obvious points that one can also not want to see overt displays of homosexual behavior in public without hating homosexuals, which is a perfect analogy to the issue at hand. Again, because it takes your very tenuous logic and exposes it as a fraud.
Ignoring a fact does not make it go away, Booger.
I am now going to commence ignoring YOU, because I do that with trolls. Whether you go away or not is irrelevant, as I simply won’t have to deal with you anymore, which serves the purpose.
Yer pal,
Satan
I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
Three months, two weeks, two days, 14 hours, 20 minutes and 28 seconds.
4303 cigarettes not smoked, saving $537.99.
Life saved: 2 weeks, 22 hours, 35 minutes.
It appears from your final paragraph that you believe this issue concerns what gays and fundamentalists think about, and act towards, each other. Actually it’s nothing of the sort. In fact, I’m not aware that Satan is gay.
What the issue is is whether the thread in the Pit is guilty of steotyping and bigotry. There are two aspects to this. One is that it judges more harshly actions committed by fundamentalists than it would similar actions committed by non-fundamentalists. Two is that even to the extent that the actions of fundamentalkists may in some instances be offensive (as you point out), by confining the discussion to fundamentalists it suggests that such behaviour is typical of all, or most, fundamentalists.
The gay/fundametalist comparison came about because one may be prejudiced as much as one wants. I was just drawing attention to the contrast between the concern about homophobia on the one hand, and the apparent bigotry towards fundamentalists on the other.
Satan, I was disappointed when you had the moderators delete your last rant. I hope you will keep this one in. It sheds valuable light on your mindset and personality, so vital to this discussion.
Oh, pardon me. I was under the mistaken impression that this was a thread in Great Debates discussing homophobia, its meaning and causes, that had gotten sidetracked into the issue of fundamentalism, and wanted to make one overall observation regarding the public and private behavior of anyone, be he/she gay or straight, liberal or conservative, religious or not, etc. I appreciate your clarification of what you have chosen to hijack it to. Carry on!
Seriously, though, I don’t care for the implication.