Now see. Jodi basically said the same thing you’ve been trying to say, minty, but in a way that was much less, if not at all vitriolic.
On preview I read your response. I agree that freedom of speech is valuable. And, I would have probably been more inclined to agree with you if you had taken Jodi’s approach to your stance. But instead you come in with “Quit your whining” and “Grow up” and such. Do you use this kind of debate tactic in arguing cases? If so, do you win any? Just curious in light of,
on the plus side, you could find a sna…er, lawyer to sue the college for failing to provide a safe, non-threatening environment.
I’d suggest looking into it, unless you live in the former CSA - most folks there (yep, I’ve lived there, too) seem to agree with morons like minty and jodi.
SYLLABICATION: pa·gan
PRONUNCIATION: pgn
NOUN: 1. One who is not a Christian, Muslim, or Jew, especially a worshiper of a polytheistic religion. 2. One who has no religion. 3. A non-Christian. 4. A hedonist. 5. A Neo-Pagan.
ADJECTIVE: 1. Not Christian, Muslim, or Jewish. 2. Professing no religion; heathen. 3. Neo-Pagan.
ETYMOLOGY: Middle English, from Late Latin pgnus, from Latin, country-dweller, civilian, from pgus, country, rural district. See pag- in Appendix I.
OTHER FORMS: pagan·dom (-dm) —NOUN
pagan·ish —ADJECTIVE
pagan·ism —NOUN
Pagan does not mean witch or wiccan or any of the other names for your pretend belief.
If I see somebody whining and acting like a baby in the Pit, and I am inclined to respond to their post, chances are I’mm not going to treat that person like some sort of delicate little flower. Heat, kitchens, and all that.
As for your questions regarding my use of strong language, please note that I was addressing a particularly useless piece of shit who utterly ignored me earlier in the thread when I twice repeated, perfectly politely, that there had not been any indication of harassment, discrimination, or rudeness in the OP (or indeed, until well after he showed up with his strawman). Plus, his tiny little wee wee gets hard every time he sees a lawyer posting in a thread. happyheathen is a complete dipshit, a religious bigot–search GD for his hate-filled anti-Catholic threads–and a total asshat to boot. I have nothing but contempt for him. Does that answer your question?
And for clarity, while I used some strong language in my response to MIS, I certainly do not hold her in any kind of contempt. The OP just rubbed me the wrong way, and I thought she was applying a double-standard on religious tolerance. I’ve seen nothing at all to indicate that she’s anything but a perfectly nice person, if a little bit sensitive about other people’s reactions to her chosen faith.
happyheathen, proselytizing may not be acceptable to you, but on the Christian proselytizer’s end, it is necessary. It is their necessity against your acceptability. They should not make jerks of themselves while proselytizing and thereby undermine their message, but if I found it necessary to proselytize, I’d be handing out tracts all day.
Or, if you prefer something a little more to the point, I’d simply reiterate that public declarations of faith invite comments and critiques from the rest of the public. Some will be stupid, some may be insightful, some will even be total asshats. Evaluate them for what they’re worth and move on. It just doesn’t make much sense to be bitterly disappointed that the rest of the world disagrees with you, when they disagree with pretty much everybody else too.
Oh, I’m well aware that some are not willing to like me or trust me solely because I’m a lawyer. This does not cause me to lose sleep at night because it has been my observation that such people will fall into one of three categories: (1) Those who make snap judgments of people solely because they belong to an an unpopular faith/racial group/profession/whatever; (2) stupid and/or boorish people who are incapable or unwilling to recognize that one characteristic does not define anyone; or (3) both. You would fall into No. 3, in case you were wondering.
The fact is, there is no right to be left alone when in public. One has no right to insist on not being bothered by anyone – no, not even by the assholes of the world. If it serves no other purpose, your posting to gratuitiously call me a “moron” (for God only knows what reason) is certainly proof of that.
or (4) have dealt with them, and know better than to expect compassion - your argument that people have an absolute right to “witness”, IMO, fails when said person does so in my face, makes snarky remarks re. my book purchases, etc.
and minty - I believe there have been cases decided wherein haranguement did rise to actionable - thus, my original Q as to how far these “my religion is the only TRUE religion, and I’m going to shove it down your throat (because I love you, and want to save you)” folks can go before the OPer should call a lawyer.
your going ballistic has done nothing to further knowledge.
(unless there were some here who had yet to learn of your dislike of myself - but that really wasn’t sufficient reason to make an ass of yourself, now, was it?)
Well, yes, I do understand that. I can’t agree with that viewpoint but I do understand that it exists and certainly it is possible to accomodate their need to prostelytize and my need to be left alone in a manner we can all live with, even if we’re not all overjoyed with it.
As I said, living in a pluralistic society we must cultivate a tolerance for divergent viewpoints. This may be easier for someone such as myself whose ethical system dictates that an adult of sound mind should not be interfered with against his/her will unless that person is a danger to others. Meaning, even if I don’t care for or approve of certain behaviors (dom/sub sex play, for example, or tattoos, or body piercing, or blue eyeshadow or pink toenail polish) I have no right to restrict other adults from such practices. Others, however, do feel that their ethical systems compell them to force others to adhere to certain modes of behavior, even if forbidden behaviors do not cause harm to others. Aside from certain acts virtually everyone agrees is criminal - such as murder and theft - our legal system tends more towards freedom than not. This annoys some folks. Too bad.
I have. Fortunately, very rare in this country. But overseas there are a number of cultures where homosexuality does draw a sentence of death.
Considering how completely you were eviscerated in that thread, why would I have to defend anything at all about it? And if you wish to continue your trolling-for-lawyers, I would like to suggest that you take it to a different thread instead of continuing your hijack of this one.
First, I never said that “people have an absolute right to witness.” Please review my posts, and attempt to confine your criticisms to things I actually did say, rather than things I didn’t.
Second, a person’s ability to approach you is not contingent on the snarkiness of their remarks. Again, your unaccountably snarky self is Exhibit A to that fact. If you are in public, you are open to being approached by strangers, and you have no right not to be. Now, if they continue to bother you after being requested to stop; if they threaten you or frighten you; or if you are not in public, the answer may be different. But the fact remains that there is no “right to be left alone” in public. Because it’s, y’know, public.
You know, there’s a bunch of Jehovah’s Witnesses that hang out at the commuter train station I use to get to work.
They stand near the main entrance, but do not block traffic. They are polite to everyone. They do not shout. They do not harass. They do ask everyone who passes if we want their magazine, or to talk. They’re prostelytizing. I’m free not to take them up on their offers of salvation.
This seems a reasonable accomodation to me.
Likewise, from time to time various church groups in my city rent billboards to advertise their presence or special occassions such as Easter. They’re free to advertise. I’m free to ignore their message.
This also seems a reasonable accomodation.
Moving on to non-Christians - there’s a popular restaurant in my area owned by devout Muslims (part of it is also a grocery store with certified Hallal (sp?) food). There is a sign on the door stating that no alcohol is served on the premesis and please do not ask to bring in your own. They are exercising their right to a wholesome, morally correct environment in accord with their religion - but they are not attempting to outlaw alcohol consumption by non-Muslims in their own homes and accomodations.
This is also a reasonable compromise.
Likewise, at business meetings I have helped to organize, most upscale hotels and banqueting facilities are happy to accomodate all manner of religious dietary practices (The most challeging I had to deal with was a meeting that had Jews on a strict kosher diet, Muslims who insisted on hallal standards, Hindus who would eat no beef (this took the beef barley soup off the menu), a Jain, who ate no meat or animal flesh at all, and two ethical Vegans, which meant no animal products. It wound up a buffet with many small dishes, all labeled as to contents - but it worked.)
Another compromise - at my office, we have a very strictly observant Jew, which means she must be home by sundown on Friday for the sabbath. During the winter, that’s about 4:30 pm. So she leaves at noon on Friday. But she comes in and works a half day Sunday, so she puts in equal time to everyone else.
Here’s another one - during Ramadan, the company sets aside a conference room for “lunchtime” prayers and we do not schedule the company “winter holiday” lunch during that month. It would just seem rude.
The company also suggests that managers allow the Catholics a long lunch on Ash Tuesday so they can get their thing done, too, but the Catholics also volunteer to make up the time by staying late either that day or sometime else during the same week.
These are all reasonable compromises that permit the exercise of religion without being obnoxious assholes to each other. It is possible for a widely divergent group of folks to co-exist with minimal friction. A lot of it also involves having the courtesy to simply not discuss certain issues in the workplace or other inappropriate places - a skill that is usually not fully developed in the 18-22 age group found at colleges and universities.
