I concur.
So you speak for all Christians? If it offends you it must be atheistic, and thus it’s bad and anti-Christian? Most Christians aren’t offended by most any rock music, and I’d find it difficult to believe that whatever music the boss played was actually anti-Christian. You’ve marginalized yourself so that you think anything offensive to you is bad and out to get you. In other words, your paranoia has created a situation you want to debate about that doesn’t exist in the real world.
I’m incredulous. Did these complaints actually happen, or is the OP lobbing a BS bomb at us to make specious argument?
“Oh, we Christians are so persecuted…See, I can’t play my music! Atheists have all the fun! Nobody takes religion seriously enough!”
What fucking planet are you on? Go get a newspaper, right now, and read it. Note who is President and Speaker of the House. Do attempt to apprehend something rather salient about the Middle East conflicts, m’kay?
Now roll up the paper, and swat yourself about the head and neck. Think of it as mortification, and we’ll both feel better.
I think for us to get anywhere in this discussion, prisoner6655321, I think you need to explain your example a bit more. What was the music that was offensive to christians? Please, if you have come here to debate, allow us to do it with all available information.
Just as you believe society favors atheists, many atheists believe that society favors christians, and you could make a much stronger case for that (there are still some states with laws barring atheists from running for office, or testifying in court).
AH-hahahahaha.
You haven’t been in the U.S. very long, have you? Ever heard of this Bush fellah?
While you’re at it prisoner, can you tell us how you know the customers who were offended by the music after the change were Christian?
Now I’d really like to know what music was being played. A boss changes the kind of music being played after a complaint and you’re convinced he purposely changed it to music that would offend religious people?
Call me nutty, but I think that the opinions of people who go around yelping about invisible sky pixies should be given less weight. Same goes for people who claim to be Napoleon, people who insist on holding conversations in Klingon, and people who think that the government is a shadow Zionist conspiracy. If you’re going to act like a nut, you’re going to have sane people treat you like one.
Okay laigle, I’m calling you nutty. Certainly you don’t treat the theists in your life (I’m sure there are many) with the same lack of credence that you’d give to those who think that they are Napoleon? Certainly you know that belief in Gods is not necessarily nutty but may be natural (ever heard of the God gene)? Certainly you know that the U.S. government is a shadow Zionist conspiracy?
To paraphrase the Philosopher Gumpus: Nutty is as nutty does.
Sorry to say this but… Cite please.
About the specific music, I’ll ask what it was when I talk to her later on tonight. But for the time being, is it not enough to say that some Christian customers (that my friend knew were Christians) complained? Why do you have to know what music was played? It’s not your judgement that matters. It’s the customers who complained that are important. What if it was just music about sex? That can be offensive to Christians. But I think it’s pretty tolerated here. Honestly, I don’t know what the music was specifically. But it doesn’t matter because the issue is about the boss taking one person’s opinion into consideration and not taking someone else’s opinion into consideration. He had 3 choices:
- To continue to offend non-christians.
- To offend no one.
- To offend religious people.
He chose to offend religious people when he could have chosen to offend no one. It used to be that when someone complained about being offended, the other person would simply try to stop offending them. Now it’s becoming more and more common for that person to choose… no not choose… TRY to offend Christians!
Bush’s opinions matter more because he’s the President. And let me tell you, he’s getting a lot of criticism about making policy based on his beliefs. You understand that for a lot or (or most even) Christians, they can’t separate their beliefs from religion. Bush is a Christian. He makes policy based on his beliefs. And he isn’t supposed to? He’s the President for goodness sake! That’s his purpose. That’s why we voted for him! He believes what we (in general) believe, or the majority of us anyway. Knowing that most Christians have a very difficult time separating their beliefs from their religion, does that mean that Christians shouldn’t run for office? Should we put that into the constitution? Would that be tolerant?
Um, where in the OP did I say anything about sky pixies or Napoleon or Klingon? I’ll just assume you were being flippant about belief in God. See how intolerant this board is? This discussion isn’t about belief in God. It’s about intolerance. Thanks for proving my point.
It matters what the music was and who and how many these Christians were because it could well be that the music was nothing more than Huey Lewis and the News, and one snake-handling Christian complained because he’s opposed to anything that would make people dance that doesn’t go on and on about Jesus. In other words, the Christians that you say complained could have been really wacky people, not just your mild-mannered church-going type. I mean, did Jack Chick happen to waltz into your place of business and complain about the radio?
How did you know they were Chrisitans, anyway? Did they identify themselves as such?
The reason we want to know what music was being played is because we are not going to assume that the boss didn’t take both persons opinion in to consideration the way you did. Just because action wasn’t taken after the second complaint, doesn’t mean he didn’t take the opinion into consideration, does it? Could it be, based on the music being played the first time, he could see how it was inappropriate for the workplace but the second time he didn’t think so? Non-action does not equal non-consideration.
I find it interesting that you haven’t even asked your friend what kind of music was being played but you came to the conclusion that he is inconsiderate to Christians and wanted to rile them up.
Well look, what if the music the manager put on was Sympathy for the Devil ? It’s certainly religious, as it admits the existence of Jesus, and the Devil both. Would that have offended your religious friends, and why? Does the music not only have to be overtly religious, but pro-christianity? I’ll bet there’s some nice pagan tunes out there, or maybe some Muslim music like this . If you’re going to insist on religious music, you’ve got to expect that some people who are sincerely religious, might be offended as well. What if when you died you get to heaven and hear “Sorry, the answer we were looking for was Odin, Odin was the correct answer. Thanks for playing, and here’s some lovely parting gifts on your way to oblivion.”?
First off, how did what he chose to do “offend religious people” (BTW, “religious people” != “Christians”; as a cite, I give you zev_steinhart, cmkeller, and norinew.) Second, what action would he have had to done to have offended no one? Clearly, turning off “Christian music” offended at least one Christian.
Wrong. His decisions matter more for that reason; his opinions should not, and Jesus, Paul, and James all made that quite explicitly clear.
Which is good. He should be making policy based on the Constitution and the law of the land, not on his beliefs.
You want to rethink and restate this sentence? As it stands, it’s pretty close to tautological.
Uh – no. He isn’t supposed to, because he is President of the United States, not President of the Christian Citizens of America. He’s supposed to be representing gobear or I Love Me Vol I just as much as he represents you or me. And his opinion of “what good Christians ought to do” is so far from the beliefs of Siege, myself, or our denominational church, that it’s laughable. And that goes for a lot of other Christians. (That’s grist for a whole lot of other threads, but leave it at that.)
Right. What Jesus Christ said were the most important things for people to do, might perhaps be good ways to run a country. Erecting monuments to the Ten Commandments, legislating the Pledge of Allegiance into something mandatory to recite, banning some people from marrying the person they love, requiring that all pregnancies be carried to term, abolishing anti-discrimination laws – they’re about as Christian as the Black Mass, and you can quote me on that!
Intolerance, perhaps not in your definition but in the definition of some of our co-religionists, is a good thing – they are intent on opposing whatever they consider sin (which carefully excludes their own sins, which they excuse away, but indict the supposed sins of others to which they’re not tempted). For others of our co-religionists, “intolerance” is opposing the mandating of their particularist beliefs on the public in general through various stuff, e.g., a “non-sectarian school prayer.”
I belonged to a group that co-sponsored a repeater for a Christian radio station in our home town. That station claimed to carefully program so that it wasn’t expressing denominational values. Except that it was quite clear that verbal inerrancy was a non-negotiable value for it. It was before all the gay issues came about, but it carried Focus on the Family – back when that was a good program. More recently, I have become inactive on a Christian board in which I was greatly involved and considered for staff, because it insists that all Christians must believe that marriage is only between one man and one woman, and permits the insulting of my denomination without repercussion, but prohibits argumentation aimed at justifying our stance. How do you define Christian – and what people who accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior do you leave out in consequence? That’s not an attack; it’s a challenge to think through what you mean by what you say, because I know your heart. prisoner, to be devoted to following Him; you’ve recently proven that in one of the most noble acts I’ve seen on this board in a long time.
BTW, a local radio station that normally plays a mix of secular light rock and pops has a Sunday morning contemporary Christian music show, hosted by a Christian staff member there. In general, my opinion is that the music itself sucks, though some of the thoughts it tries to convey are commendable. But I ran into one song this morning on our way in to town to attend Church about “Take up your candle; go light the world” that I thought was terrific.
Sing it, sister.
It’s not always the unreligious who win. When I worked the front desk at a hotel, we had to listen to country music Monday through Saturday (much of it with a religious bent). On Sunday, we had to listen to religious programming all day long.
The manager claimed that was what the customers liked, and they’d complain otherwise, but he just so happened to be a religious guy who liked country music.
OK. Let’s see now. After almost 2 years of abstaining from participation in this board, you finally decided, TODAY (9 Jan 2005), to pay and become a chartered member, and you have already made over 40 posts in one day. Here are samples of your contributions today:
If you are the judge, the jury and the defendant in the same time, I’m not surprised my post strikes you as defiantly ignorant. You could have at lease elaborated on your sound-byte, one-liner judgment about my post.
I think the people knew fully well who they were electing. After all, one of his favorite political philosophers is Jesus Christ. (The same guy who said something interesting about rich people making it into Heaven? hmmm…)
Legally, I don’t see much Bush is doing incorrectly on the religious front. About the only marginal thing I can think of is his pushing for a continuing DoMA, but without the courts firmly securing complete equality for homosexuals I don’t see the unconstitutionality of it.
Now, what I think he should do is another story, but clearly, if it wasn’t him, another person would be in office who also doesn’t support equality as much as he should. I don’t like it, but based on the anti-gay legislation that passed, Bush clearly has an anti-homosexual mandate from the people.
Basically, I don’t see what’s wrong about using one’s religious beliefs in office, other than to the extent they conflict with my secular beliefs (and what religious beliefs I have.)
Sadly, too few Christians to make a difference in the election.
nothing un-Christian about that.
These indeed are un-Christian, especially Pauline Christianity, which abolishes many of the old laws.
now, if it’s a matter between choosing between one person to survive, then it’s a matter of playing God. However, if it is likely to save both lives, it’s simply a matter of determining when life begins.
most of these abolitions would indeed be un-Christian, but ironically, some may conflict with our constitutional rights to free association, which would put you in a position of supporting Christian, unconstitutional legislation if that’s true.
I think the OP is dangerously close to this territory, i.e. close to the attitude of “you can’t stop me from doing what I want, since that’s being intolerant, but I’ll stop you from doing what you want.”
Because you brought the subject up here and you’ve given people good reason to think that you’re hypersensitive. So they want to know if you’re overreacting or not.
Sure it can. But you didn’t say whatever it was could be offensive to Christians, you said it was. And you made it sound like it was specifically offensive to Christians. Music about sex wouldn’t be.
You’re talking yourself right out of any chance to be taken seriously by claiming that you, and religious people, are being persecuted.
Yes I do. Of course, you can’t be as open about that in real life or you’ll wind up jobless and/or dead in an alley, but whenever I see someone wearing religious memorabilia or talking about god, I lump them into the same mental bin as the customer support nimrod who spends half her day ranting about UFOs.
That’s not to say I give them no credence on any subject, even a complete ranting lunatic can be informed and correct on any number of subjects, but I don’t count on them ever having a damned clue what they’re talking about. If a schizophrenic engineer told me that a steel beam would fail at 300 MPa of load, I would check his numbers just like anyone else’s. If he told me that we had to be careful about temperature load because the fire dragons would be crossing it regularly, I might not do the math.
Many mental illnesses are “natural” in the sense of resulting from genetic or congenital structural traits of the nervous system. That doesn’t mean that the people who have them don’t suffer from diminished faculties.
The god gene is a crock of shit.