Maybe some of us wear crosses for ourselves, and to make us feel closer to God or whathaveyou.
The Eastern Orthodox faithful wear a baptismal cross all throughout their lives and never remove it. Why is that so bad?
Excuse me for daring to have a religion you find annoying, Podkayne.
:rolleyes:
Hmm…I have to say, I think there is a blurry line between “annoyed” and “offended”. I confess, I don’t see that huge of a difference. I can believe that some of you do not feel an intense feeling of deep, personal offense about the Christian Fish. But I don’t buy the “shrug, I’m merely annoyed” thing. I think it goes a little deeper than that.
And, Podkayne, please, with more clear and plain language, what is the difference between “reacting negatively” and being “offended”? I understand that you think that something “offensive” should have never been done or said. Which sounds like an extreme feeling of offense. But it sounds like “reacting negatively” is just a slightly less intense feeling of “offended”. You are gracious in saying that people have the right to express themselves, but am I correct that their expressions of religious faith basically piss you off? (i.e. “react negatively”.) Am I guessing that correctly?
Taking the creationist part out of it, why do you find the Christian Fish “annoying”? Why give a damn?
Where did the “self-righteous” part get in here? You just assume that is their reaction. I think that more than likely, they are wondering why someone would go out of their way to mock a long-held Christian symbol. They might see it as a petty reaction to a rather innocuous symbol. And, the Christian Fish is not specifically about Creationism, you know.
Sigh. “React negatively, but not be offended.” Basically you will be pissed or annoyed. And you did something that you know might someone first, they react by annoying you back, and down that slippery slope. You know where it’s all heading.
And, I recall you mentioned in a previous post:
But it looks like that is exactly what is going to happen! You understand that some people will react to your Darwin Fish with a Jesus Fish Eating Darwin fish (but you will not be “offended”, of course) and on and on! Looks like the start of an obnoxious bumper sticker war to me.
Ptahlis wrote:
“Their” symbol? The fish is a Christian symbol, not specifically a Creationist symbol. I understand that the “in your face” Creationists who want Evolution taken out of school (or Creationism put in) are worthy of being “diametrically opposed” to. But I don’t think I understand why anyone would give a damn if someone else believed in Creation, or that the Earth is atop a Great Giant Turtle named Phil, or whatever. (As long as they were not militant about it.) It’s just a private belief. But that is definitely a topic for another thread, so I’ll not go into that here.
True, “outrage” is too extreme of a reaction, and most Christians wouldn’t feel that way, I am sure. I guess I differ with you on one other thing - I DON’T think it is necessary to display something that I KNOW would be considered in “poor taste” by many. On the other hand, I am actually amused by the cute “Honk if you understand punctuated equilibria!”, “Oh, Evolve!” and “Evolutionists do it . . . with increasing complexity!” pro-evolution bumper stickers. They are funny. They do not make me roll my eyes, because there is not that element of mocking a long-held symbol. I think there is a definite increased risk of offense and annoyance when ANYONE does that. I actually do understand why you were drawn to the Darwin Fish, and it isn’t like I’m ever going to be tempted to peel one of these fishes off of a car. But, in your attempt to target the aggressive Creationists, I think you are “sticking it to” a lot of other Christians as well.
Right. I believe the fish thing was because so many of the apostles were fishermen.
BTW, I have never seen the Darwin fish-what does it look like?
Links, anyone?
Guinastasia: Well, pardon me for being annoyed at your religion. Am I indeed entitled to voice my opinion without you rolling your eyes at me?
For the umpteenth time, I am not saying that displaying a religious symbol is bad.
I’m saying that I personally don’t enjoy seeing Christian symbols. I don’t like Christianity. I think Christianty is erroneous and dangerous. If I could wish it away as if I never existed, I would. But since it does exist, I’m not going to tell anyone that they don’t have a right to believe in it, talk about it, paint “Praise Jesus” on their house or do whatever they want. I just don’t personally like to see it. Okay?
If you want to see the Darwin fish and other examples, go here: http://www.evolvefish.com
yosemitebabe:
If see something I don’t agree with, I don’t shrug it off. I don’t ignore it. I don’t “not give a damn.”
Neither do I get angry, or “pissed off”, or offended, or want to silence the opposing point of view. I get offended when people exploit stereotypes. I get offended when people are insulting. I get offended when people use crude language when referring to another person. If I am offended, I want the person to shut up. In my mind, they have not exercised basic courtesy, so I have no obligation to listen courteously to what they have to say. If they don’t shut up, I will remove myself from earshot or ignore them. I’m not going to dignify offensive statements by dwelling on them. In my mind, if someone says, “That is offensive,” it means that they find it so repugnant that they do not want to be exposed to it, that they wish they never saw it.
I do not get offended when someone simply disagrees with me. I think about what they’re saying. I think about why I disagree with them. I see this as a healthy process.
I don’t know, maybe I do go around “pissed off” all the time, if you consider thinking about opposing points of view instead of dismissing them without a thought “pissed off.” More than once, I started off being “pissed off” at something, but in the course of thinking about it, I realized it has some merit, and it changed my feelings on an issue.
Now, I am likely to ignore a bass fishing sticker. I am neither strongly in favor or strongly opposed to bass fishing. I ignore bumper stickers like “Born to shop.” I personally think the celebration of shopping is stupid, so stupid that it’s not worth my time to even think about it. Other issues, though, are worth my time to think about.
And, okay, fine, let me come out all in favor of the Obnoxious Bumper Sticker War! I urge the people go forth to find the rudest, most irritating bumper stickers they can lay hands on! Everyone should have five, ten, or fifteen bumperstickers ridiculing the beliefs of groups to which they do not belong! Mock Christians, evolutionists, vegetarians, omnivores, bass fishermen, model railroadists, national park enthusiasts . . . MOCK EVERYONE WITH LITTLE STICKERS ON YOUR CARS!!! TAKE NO PRISONERS!
Let us plummet down that slippery slope, whooping and hollering all the way. I hardly think it’ll lead to a breakdown of society, though it may increase our gas consumption by weighing down our cars with rhetoric.
The clandestine “sign of the fish” was used in the days of the early Christian persecution as signal to each other when identification with the group could get you a quick trip to the lions, archery practice, or a cross. It has recently been in vogue among Pentecostals and other Protestant groups who have desired to more closely identify with the principles and docrine of the NT church rather than with the Catholic branch of Christianity (the back to the Bible folks who are for the most part “Creationists”). There are those I know who view the “Darwin Fish” as sacreligious as our Catholic friends would upon seeing a crucifix or statue of the Madonna spray painted.
I have no IDing marks on my car mostly because I tend to be an agressive driver who ignors speed limits and I don’t want to create an opportunity for those who look for reasons to throws barbs at the religious crowd. I did place one of the “fish” emblems on my wife’s car at her insistance for the following reasons:
[ul]
[li]It is a commandment of the Christian religion to witness to the world.[/li][li]Jesus said that if we (Christians) do not speak out for Him publically, He will not speak to the Father in our behalf.[/li][li]My wife is NOT a Bible-Thumper, she believes in letting her life be the example like the old saying from St. Francis, “Preach everywhere you go, and if necessary, use words.”[/li][/ul]
Yes, the sign is a form of witness! Purposely so. And for those of you that are offended by any form of religious expression including those that are relatively nonintrusive, I regret you find it so.
**
To your first point, namely that all Christians use the fish symbol, I agree completely. But the Creation Science folks haven’t developed a badge of identity to separate them from the rest of the flock. As soon as the creationists have a widely used and easily recognized symbol of their very own I will assuredly find a parody of that posthaste. However, I still feel that any reaction felt by other Christians is likely to be very minor and, in the whole equation, fairly trivial. At most they might feel that the Darwin fish oversteps the bounds, in that a customary, though not sacred, symbol has been unfairly co-opted, and that, simply put, isn’t enough to make me change my mind about it.
As to why I give a damn about what they believe, I really don’t. Anybody who wants to believe in a Biblically literal creation is perfectly free to, and while I do not particularly respect that point of view from an intellectual standpoint, I certainly won’t lose sleep over it. What I do care about, on the other hand, is the insidious use of pseudo-science to try and give their beliefs a false imprimature of validation while at the same time using dubious tactics to try and discredit the results real science actually yields. I care about the attempt to insinuate religious teachings into the classroom in the guise of science. And I also care very much about the way that such practices can mislead the uneducated layman as to what science actually is.
The basics of what science is, how it works, and what it can and cannot do, are concepts that everyone should understand. They aren’t that hard to explain or to grasp. Yet an alarming number of people in this country are shockingly ignorant about these things, and pseudo-science like Creation Scientists pawn off on people exacerbate and exploit this situation. Science is by far the most useful tool we have ever devised when it comes to understanding the universe, and when I see its trappings used to support irrational ideas then I feel probably something similar to what a Christian might feel when confronted by Fred Phelps or the Christian Identity cults. They use all the Biblical trappings to spew forth bile and hatred, clothed with the false imprimature of God’s approval, and they give non-believers a very bad impression of what Christianity is all supposed to be about.
I understand your feelings that it is unfair and needlessly combative for the Darwin fish to parody the traditional fish, but I respectfully disagree.
You wanna know something that i’m really sick of seeing? Jesus Loves You on license plates. People by all means have the right to put that on there, but for cryin out loud, does everyone have to get one? Do they think that this world will be better because of if? If that’s the case, I think the world would have been better a long time ago, seeing that the ideas of Christianity have been around for, oh, say, 2000+. Why can’t people keep their religious beleifs to themselves for a change? Oh, wait this is america. Freedom of Religion. OOPS.
But by the way, I find the retalliatory bumber stickers against environmentalists and animal lovers quite amusing.
“If you don’t like cutting down trees, try wiping your ass with plastic.”
I love that one.
Bumper sticker “war” ? I see the original Christian fish all the time, I have never seen a Darwin fish.
Mr. Blackwell:
It must vary from region to region. I see the Darwin Fishes often.
Podkayne:
I can’t speak for Guinastasia, but my guess would be “no”. (Not that you are not “entited” to voice your opinion, of course.) You are “annoyed” at her religion, she “reacts negatively” by rolliing her eyes. Why shouldn’t she roll her eyes?
Well, thank you Podkayne, for such a refeshing display of candor! No more “react negatively” for you! What a relief. “Pissed off” is a far more genuine term, at least in this case.
Well, we have resolved one thing - you are FOR bumper sticker wars, then! 
Ptahlis:
Well, you can do whatever you want, of course. But you do have the option of many other (quite amusing) evolution bumper stickers out there. Which would be quite effective in targeting the obnoxious aggressive Creationists. Instead you knowingly choose one that obviously parodies a general Christian symbol. I think that is “needlessly combative”. You disagree. We’ll just have to leave it at that!
shagadelicmysteryman:
Why can’t those evolutionists keep their beliefs to themselves for a change? Why can’t those fisherman keep their beliefs to themselves for a change? Why can’t those National Park lovers keep their beliefs to themselves for a change?
:rolleyes:
Note my above post…it’s against my religion…literally!
Because it’s rude–mildly offensive, if you will. You’re trying to draw a parallel here, where none realy exists. The negative reaction I spoke of is a feeling, which I can chose to keep to myself, express appropriately, or express inappropriately. In a personal conversation, rather than a “bumper sticker war” I’m considerably more careful, since I’m addressing to a person, not a faction, and I’ve done my best to be courteous and respectful to everyone in this thread. Inappropriate expressions directed toward me bring an end to a discussion in which I want to participate.
If someone is really interested in what I have to say, they’ll respond substantively to my statements. If they’re not, they’ll do things like misrepresent my position, ask me the same questions again and again, and roll their eyes at me.
I do not deny Guinastasia the right to roll her(?) eyes, but I don’t consider it very polite.
Are you implying that I have not been straightforward with you? I’ve done my best to express my feelings honestly and without attacking anyone. Simply not agreeing with you does not constitute a lack of candor.
Uh, sorry, no.
I remind you that we’re dealing with your definition of “pissed off,” which, you seem to be tacilty agreeing, is “thinking about opposing points of view instead of dismissing them without a thought”–not a definition of “pissed off” I’ve ever encountered before.
I would never choose to describe myself as pissed off about religious symbols, according to my understanding of that phrase. I freely admit that I get pissed off at creationists, evangalists, and the like when they spread lies and intimidate people–but I don’t get pissed off at a simple symbol.
I am mystified if, despite all I’ve said and the pains I’ve taken to describe my true feelings as accurately as I can, you still think that “pissed off” is the best descriptor. I suspect this is because you think you know how I feel, that I’m an atheist with a chip on my shoulder reading unwarranted intentions into a perfectly neutral symbol and getting pissed off about it. Well, all I can say is that it really, truly does not make me angry to see a fish on a car, and as to the intentions of fish-owners, I direct you to Phil_15’s post. If “witness” isn’t the smuggest word in the Christian’s dictionary, I’ll be a monkey’s uncle.
I’ll continue say I react negatively because, despite the fact that it’s a little clumsy, I believe that is the most accurate description of my feelings, and I think I’m the person best qualified to describe my own emotions. If it makes you feel good, by all means declare victory–but I think either I’ve failed to convey my point, or you’ve failed to grasp it.
God, this has gone on to two pages.
We both really need to get a life.
“…witness is the smuggest word in the Christian’s vocabulary…”
From one of the online dictionaries:
I assume you are referring to #3 and unfortunately I have met many “Christians” who do display that attitude. I would submit that they have a problem with PRIDE which the scriptures most certainly warn against. I, too, find the “Bible Thumper” in-your-face brand of “Christianity” most repugnant because that is NOT the Gospel of Jesus as I understand it and try to base my life upon. And secondly, it gives the rest of us a black eye and plenty of ammunition for those of you that are on the opposite side of the fence . I share the gospel to those that express an interest and TRY (except in debates on this board) to leave the rest of you as alone as I can. However to lump an entire religion into one denigrated group because of the idealogy and actions of some of that group that are disingenuous to precepts laid out in their own fundemental “rulebook”, I believe is less than fair. But, as always, I respect your right to disagree.
Ptahlis wrote:
Actually, it’s a lousy visual for evolution. Not one transitional or stable form in life’s long history looks like a fish with legs. The early amphibians looked more like salamanders. (And they sure as heck never used wrenches, like that “evolve” fish does!)
A more accurate symbol might be an actual extinct species, such as a trilobite or a stegosaurus.
And that’s not rude? So all Christianity is dangerous?
Give me a break! So it’s dangerous when I pray the Rosary in Church. Sweet Mother of God! You don’t know me, and you don’t know all Christians. So don’t go around saying it’s dangerous. That’s bullshit. By that same argument, I could say I found atheism dangerous, wrong and I wish it would go away. (Although, that’s not how I feel). But if I were to say that, I’d be a bigot, right?
Please. Give me a break. I don’t even have a car, and if I did, I wouldn’t put a fish on it. If I were to wear a cross, what’s it to you? Why do you get so pissed about it?
It’s my body. I’ll wear what I want.
ANd by the way, we should keep our beliefs to ourselves?
Oh sure! And I guess you’ll be keeping YOUR beliefs to YOURself.
Get a life.
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Guinastasia said:
Well, you’d certainly be asked to explain yourself. And you’d be fully justified in doing the same thing here. But you didn’t. Instead, you chose to go off on a rant…
Well, I didn’t mean to go on a rant, and if I did, I appologize. (Rough night-failed a test and have a D as my midterm grade in Early American History…
The reason I did not take that tactic, however, is because I don’t believe there’s anything wrong with atheism. I don’t believe there’s anything wrong with any religion, whatever it is-it is a personal choice. And most of the time, I really do respect people’s beliefs.
All I ask is that they respect mine in return.
I merely meant to play the Devil’s Advocate.
Guinastasia said:
I think you misunderstood what I said. I meant you could ask him to explain why he feels that way instead of just jumping him for feeling that way. For all you know, he has perfectly good and legitimate reasons for holding that opinion…
Hmmm…good idea.
Why didn’t I think of that-d’oh!
Too much school is frying my brain…
Midterms, senior thesis…
Podkayne-why do you feel the way you do about Christianity?
You expressed your opinion (your “negative reaction”) to her religion and her wearing of a Christian Cross. She expressed her opinion (“negative reaction”) by “rolling her eyes”, or, using the VB code of “rolleyes”. She could have just written something like “Oh puleeeze” instead, it would have amounted to the same thing. She is entitled to respond to your post, just as your are entitled to respond to hers. It does not mean that she would literally roll her eyes at you in a public and face-to-face situation. It would be rude to do that to someone’s face.
She could be more articulate in expressing why she “rolls her eyes” at you, but I think she might be wondering if indeed, you do go around “pissed off” all the time. Seeing as a whole lot of people wear crosses. And I guess she might be wondering if you are wound a little too tight. Or something…(I cannot speak for her, of course.)
Oh HEAVENS. You do take things so seriously. (I write this suspecting that you will take this little quip too seriously as well! ) It’s just that the term “react negatively” has got to be the most stilted, awkward, “PC speak” expression I think I’ve ever read. “Pissed off” seems to be far more geniune. As does “annoyed”. Sorry, that’s just my gut reaction. Feel free to take several paragraphs correcting me, chiding me, or telling me that I don’t get it! (THAT’S A JOKE!!! JOKE!!!)
“Thinking about opposing points of view instead of dismissing them without a thought”. Oh heavens, I think I am going to collapse. You are exhausting me! First we have “react negatively”, then this!!?!
I can only relate with my own experiences as a vegetarian. Meat-eaters are expressing an “opposing point of view”, and I have decided that THINKING about their opposing point of view every time I encouter it is just too exhausting. I’ve thought about it enough already. Now I don’t give a damn (or give them much thought) as long as they personally leave me alone and don’t wave meat in my face. I’ve got other things to “react negatively” to, thankyouverymuch. Life is too short, you know?
I’m sure you will express an “opposing point of view” to my last thought, I anxiously await it!
But you don’t mind annoying a lot of people by mocking this specific symbol (that does not piss you off.) OK.
I’m far too exhausted to “declare victory”, and that was not my intent. This is not a contest! I never expect atheists to totally agree with me. (Where’s the fun in that?)