Spectrum, aren’t you a Christian?
Excellent point.
And, by the way, GL, you want an example of “one of those Christians who’s trying to oppress gay people and push his faith on everybody else by law”?
I’m quoting him.
You want another?
Me.
You want a bunch of others? Leaf back through this thread, the eight-page one in the Pit about whether belief/disbelief in God is fact or opinion, and see how many people are stating their Christianity and their desire to dissociate themselves from Neopharisaic Falwellianity.
And we’re fighting as hard as we can – it’s our beliefs that are being perverted to abuse and malign by the hatemongers.
I missed that, prisoner. Go you!
Daniel
Lennon said in his interview with Playboy magazine, right before he was killed, that he didn’t mean, literally, no religion, just none of the whole “my god can beat up your god”, or “if you don’t believe the way I do you are EVIL!” stuff.
His point was-what IF this is all there is? Couldn’t we still be peaceful, and nice, not because we’re afraid of going to Hell, or because we want to go to Heaven, but just because we SHOULD?
The reason why I haven’t asked about the Christian music is that I really don’t KNOW any Christian rock-all the Christian music I know of is traditional or classical. So it wouldn’t mean anything. Besides, you said people complained because it was Christian rock, and they weren’t Christian.
Siege
The people who complained were Catholics, Mormons and Jews.
Where in hell did that come from? Take a look around, Sporto. The US is predominantly Christian. It’s not going away. But if you really wanna get into a pissing contest over whether Christians are more persecuted than virtually any other group in the US, I’m game.
Perhaps Christians should learn to be just a skosh more tolerant, just like I said. Until that happens, I won’t be surprised at all. Why, what’s yours?
And Poly: I know that it’s your belief that’s being perverted. But until a group of Christians comes along who can overcome “Neopharisaic Falwellianity” (great term by the by) then you shall be known by those who claim your beliefs. Damned shame and all, but that’s the way it is.
And prisoner6655321: If you really feel as you claim in your link, that casting judgment on others is prideful, then I imagine that you’re capable of realizing that this thread serves no purpose. Because you’ve judged the manager in your poorly worded and worse defended example based on your interpretation of his actions. I dunno, seems similar to me.
Consider yourself fortunate. I’m sure many will accuse me of holding this oppinion because of the content, but that’s not it. There are literally hundreds of spiritually-oriented compositions that I think are wonderful in the sphere of Christianity alone.
Just think: Creed is the most widely-regarded example of the genre, if they’re music could be thought of as Xian Rock. From there it goes from insufferably bad to gouge-your-eardrums-out-with-red-hot-augers bad. It’s really just the most gawdawfle collection of music under the heading of “rock” I’ve enver encountered. I had a friend at an old job who was pretty much fundie-light, and she brought this stuff into work one day, on the recommendation of a friend from her church. I said go crazy, and she popped the disks one-by-one into the changer and hit “shuffle”. I suppressed my urge to jump out the window, as I had (sadly) given the go-ahead, and she remained silent for some time. Finally, after what seemed like an eternity in purgatory (but was probaly like 16 minutes) she said, “My God, this stuff SUCKS!” And threw in a Prince CD. I’m guessing most of the Xian Rock audience doesn’t really want to be there, but can’t abide more mainstream rock acts because they figure it’s be like paying money to watch the whore of Babylon striptease. So they’re stuck with this Xian Rock, which most certainly doesn’t, and they have to make the best of it while they are neigher edified nor entertained for an hour or two.
In short, it’s like customer repellent. Maybe some don’t mind crap music in a shop, but I only put up with it if I have to. If I’m just browsing, and the PA is oozing spew, I move on.
I hear that there’s a movement in the U.S.A. to ban display of ALL religious symbols (like those on church property) because they could be seen from public areas, and, as public areas are for the most part considered to be part of “the state”, then displaying such symbols for all to see violates the separation of church and state.
Similarly, all religious broadcasts or telecasts would be illegal as well, as they use the frequencies which are regulated by the government, and using these government granted and government regulated airwaves for religious purposes would also violate the separation of church and state.
I’ve heard of something called the Freedom From Religion Foundation, and I wonder if this was part of their political agenda, and if so, would these people soon get their way and have this written into law?
[QUOTE=rippingtons_fan
I hear that there’s a movement in the U.S.A. to ban display of ALL religious symbols (like those on church property) because they could be seen from public areas, and, as public areas are for the most part considered to be part of “the state”, then displaying such symbols for all to see violates the separation of church and state.[/QUOTE]
Unless you can provide a link to any sort of organization that advocates banning religious displays even from private church owned property, I’m taking your claims with a grain of salt.
Anybody can advocate anything, but I’ve never heard of this. If you’re saying or have heard this has any kind of serious following, I’m sure you’ve been misinformed. No court would buy that reasoning because it would be a clear violation of the First Amendment, which guarantees the free exercise of religion.
I only gave it a quick look, but the Freedom from Religion Foundation does not appear to advocate what you’re saying it does.
Great, sounds like a fun game. I’ll let you start by showing me where I said anything of the sort. Your move.
Well, “Sporto,” I’d guess that my plan is exactly what I said in the part that you quoted. To make a world where everybody can coexist peacefully and still be happy, without having to one-up each other and blame each other and be total hypocrites and justify it by saying that they have more of a problem than we do.
And not freaking out and seeing every single display of religious faith as an attack, but being practical about it and actually putting some sense into it, saying this is witnessing, while this is something that I don’t agree with but I respect that it is important to you.
You know, this “tolerance” thing that you keep saying everybody else needs to do, but apparently y’all are exempt.
I think you need a little more tinfoil in your hat.
Fair enough. You didn’t claim that. I was ascribing the motives of the OP to you. I apologize.
Y’see, Slick, I don’t have a problem with peaceful coexistence. 'Samatter of fact, I’m all for it. I’m just getting damned sick and tired of waiting for it.
Sounds fine. And for the record, I don’t make a point of freaking out at every religious display. It’s primarily those on the courthouse lawn that get my dander up.
I’m sorry? Exempt? You wouldn’t be putting words in my mouth that don’t exist or anything, wouldja? I’d hate to see that happen.
I’m glad that there were some sane answers here at the Straight Dope to these claims, because maybe now I can try to track this down to the source (if there is one.) Could someone further down the line have just made this all up for the shock value? Is it even possible to track down something like this to its original source?
I apologise for repeating all this stuff I heard, but I HAD to find out if other people had heard of this before. I originally heard this from a person at work, so I asked him where he heard it, and he said from a person in his neighborhood, and in asking him further he said he thought that the person he got it from was in the John Birch Society! Could they be branching out from paranoid anti-communism into paranoid claims of religious persecution?
Maybe now, since these claims were aired on the Straight Dope we can nip this in the bud before it spreads any further.
Well, there’s always ‘Only the Good Die Young’ by Billy Joel. Apparently, the one and only song my mother forbade my sisters from playing in the house (she had mellowed a good bit by the time I hit the same age).
If you’re going to object to any rock and roll song that advocates premarital sex, in any fashion (however indirect), then certainly one should also object to the poem “To His Coy Mistress” by Andrew Marvell, since that promotes premarital sex in a more obvious way.
Apparently you didn’t notice my sig! 
prisoner, you do realize that what you’ve been doing this thread – making very brief replies which only address the most tangential points – is the kind of behaviour which is likely to get you Pitted again, don’t you? People have raised rather good arguments in this thread but once again you’ve failed to address them. Care to give it a shot?
CJ