Riverbend Church Rudeness
mgh1
On the recommendation of a friend, my wife and our 1 year old daughter
attended Riverbend. In the middle of the minister's sermon, he not so
nicely asked that our daughter be removed from the sanctuary due to her
babbling. Our one year old was being a normal babbling kid and was not
abnormally loud, plus we were sitting near the back of the church. We were
quite embarrassed and offended and will never attend Riverbend again. We
have been to many churches in the Austin area with our daughter and have
never been asked to leave.
As visitors to the church, if kids are not allowed in the sanctuary, why
aren't there signs indicating so, or why don't the ushers tell you this?
What kind of minister needs absolute silence to deliver a sermon anyway?
Our friends who recommended the church were so outraged that they dropped
their membership at Riverbend immediately.
Is this type of rudeness normal at Riverbend?
jamie
mgh1 <mg...@texas.net> wrote:
>On the recommendation of a friend, my wife and our 1 year old daughter
>attended Riverbend. In the middle of the minister's sermon, he not so
>nicely asked that our daughter be removed from the sanctuary due to her
>babbling. Our one year old was being a normal babbling kid and was not
>abnormally loud, plus we were sitting near the back of the church. We were
>quite embarrassed and offended and will never attend Riverbend again. We
>have been to many churches in the Austin area with our daughter and have
>never been asked to leave.
Personally I think that children who are not old enough to at least
understand when they are *supposed* to be quiet should not be brought to
church. Just because some churches will try to ignore noisy children
does not mean that it is a positive thing for everyone to have their
prayer and worship disrupted by your child. I think that you are the
ones being rude, bringing a one-year-old to church. If you feel that
your child needs to be brought to church with you that young, then you
ought to be attending a children's service with her, and not disrupting
an adult religious service.
--
jamie (m...@wans.net)
"There's a seeker born every minute."
gary
mgh1 wrote in message ...
>On the recommendation of a friend, my wife and our 1 year old daughter
>attended Riverbend. In the middle of the minister's sermon, he not so
>nicely asked that our daughter be removed from the sanctuary due to her
>babbling. Our one year old was being a normal babbling kid and was not
>abnormally loud, plus we were sitting near the back of the church. We were
>quite embarrassed and offended and will never attend Riverbend again
I could not disagree with you more. Your child's "normal babbling", while
no doubt extremely cute to your ears, bothers others. The minister was
simply saying out loud what many of his parishioners were thinking. I am
sure that if you "never attend Riverbend again" it will be too soon for the
people who sat near you that Sunday.
The problem that you inflicted on those church-goers is by no means
limited to church. In restaurants, bookstores, video stores, retail
establishments of all types, couples allow their young toddlers to run
around, scream, cry, do pretty much whatever they want, without any regard
whatsoever for the rights of other adults who do NOT find these children one
bit cute or appealing.
Hey! We don't want to hear your kid! If your kid can keep a sock in it,
fine. If you can control your kid, fine. Otherwise, please -- take your
kid and go away!
gary
========================================
"There would be a lot more civility in this world if people
didn't take it as an invitation to walk all over you."
-- Calvin & Hobbes
Gary Davis Media Web site:
http://www.garydavis.com
========================================
Keiffers
jamie wrote:
> Personally I think that children who are not old enough to at least
> understand when they are *supposed* to be quiet should not be brought to
> church. Just because some churches will try to ignore noisy children
> does not mean that it is a positive thing for everyone to have their
> prayer and worship disrupted by your child. I think that you are the
> ones being rude, bringing a one-year-old to church. If you feel that
> your child needs to be brought to church with you that young, then you
> ought to be attending a children's service with her, and not disrupting
> an adult religious service.
So you're saying that by introducing your child at an early age to religion
is dumb, right? A church is not the place to debate whether someone is rude
or not. Church is the house of God and not some restaurant or movie theater
where it's expected to control a child. Even though I do not goto church now
as much as I did when I was younger, children are still human beings, whom
are God's creations and regardless of the age, they should still be
accepted. I've never heard of a church holding an 'adult' religious service.
BTW, there isn't such a thing as a 'childrens' service so to speak. The
closest thing that comes to that is putting them in a sunday school
classroom that is no different than daycare other than the fact that they
set a religious overtone to the atmosphere of the room. I personally think
that the pastor was wrong for telling them to more or less shut their kid up
or get the hell out. I can only imagine that others attending the service
were completely appalled by the actions of the pastor, though I'm sure
several of them had the attitude that you have.....which is completely
wrong. I think that Riverbend actually holds a bit of higher standard
considering the part of town that it is located in, which should have
nothing to do with whom attends or is brought along.
Tracey
jamie wrote:
>
> mgh1 <mg...@texas.net> wrote:
> >On the recommendation of a friend, my wife and our 1 year old daughter
> >attended Riverbend. In the middle of the minister's sermon, he not so
> >nicely asked that our daughter be removed from the sanctuary due to her
> >babbling. Our one year old was being a normal babbling kid and was not
> >abnormally loud, plus we were sitting near the back of the church. We were
> >have been to many churches in the Austin area with our daughter and have
> >never been asked to leave.
>
> understand when they are *supposed* to be quiet should not be brought to
> church. Just because some churches will try to ignore noisy children
> does not mean that it is a positive thing for everyone to have their
> prayer and worship disrupted by your child. I think that you are the
> ones being rude, bringing a one-year-old to church. If you feel that
> your child needs to be brought to church with you that young, then you
> ought to be attending a children's service with her, and not disrupting
> an adult religious service.
>
I agree, Jamie. When my little ones were that age, we could not imagine
taking them in to the main service because you just never know when a
crying session may begin. The minister at the Riverbend church probably
should have just overlooked the situation unless the baby was really
making the crowd uneasy. Many churches will say just prior to the
sermon that if your child becomes loud during church, please take
him/her down to the childrens room. Decons and other church members can
kindly tell a person with a crying baby that just down the hall is the
childrens room if they need it.
Tracey
gary wrote:
>
> mgh1 wrote in message ...
> >attended Riverbend. In the middle of the minister's sermon, he not so
> >nicely asked that our daughter be removed from the sanctuary due to her
> >babbling. Our one year old was being a normal babbling kid and was not
> >abnormally loud, plus we were sitting near the back of the church. We were
>
> I could not disagree with you more. Your child's "normal babbling", while
> no doubt extremely cute to your ears, bothers others. The minister was
> simply saying out loud what many of his parishioners were thinking. I am
> sure that if you "never attend Riverbend again" it will be too soon for the
> people who sat near you that Sunday.
> The problem that you inflicted on those church-goers is by no means
> limited to church. In restaurants, bookstores, video stores, retail
> establishments of all types, couples allow their young toddlers to run
> around, scream, cry, do pretty much whatever they want, without any regard
> whatsoever for the rights of other adults who do NOT find these children one
> bit cute or appealing.
> Hey! We don't want to hear your kid! If your kid can keep a sock in it,
> fine. If you can control your kid, fine. Otherwise, please -- take your
> kid and go away!
> gary
Gary, I feel that you're being too harsh here. Common sense is not all
that common anymore, but there's no need to be rude about it.
gary
Tracey wrote in message <3502C7...@swbell.net>...
>gary wrote:
>> Hey! We don't want to hear your kid! If your kid can keep a sock in
it,
>> fine. If you can control your kid, fine. Otherwise, please -- take your
>> kid and go away!
>> gary
>
>Gary, I feel that you're being too harsh here. Common sense is not all
>that common anymore, but there's no need to be rude about it.
Really? You think THAT'S rude? (I DID say "please", you know.) What I
find to be "rude" is the attitude of all the "progressive" young parents out
there who think it's their RIGHT to inflict their noisy, aggressive little
brats on the rest of us!
It has gotten to the point where you can't go into a restaurant without
ending up next to some couple with a screaming toddler, and the best the
parents can do to shut the toddler up is to say something like, "Let's be
quiet now, O-kaaaaaaaay?" (They always end every sentence to the child with
that "O-kaaaaaay?" as though they're asking the child's permission to
control his or her behavior.)
I raised two sons, each of whom is now in his twenties, off on his own,
and well-adjusted, as far as I can tell. Neither of them was EVER allowed,
at ANY age, to bother other people in a public place -- at least for no
longer than it took me or their mother to get them out of the room. We
considered it OUR responsibility to control our children's behavior in
public.
I suppose now that would be "child abuse".
gary
EgOiStE-Felipe Campos
What is wrong with all you morons? Do you realize what the purpose of
children is? One of the very first commandments in biblical passage was
to be fruitful and multiply. Perhaps you forgot all that jazz about
"suffer unto the children" and "and a little child shall lead them".
Church is a place where everyone should be welcome. In many a catholic
church we have cry rooms for noisy babies, but that's not standard. Try
going to a big hispanic church and you'd be mortified. Women whipping out
their tits to breastfeed while we're injesting the body of Christ. Is
that rude? No way. It's called the human condition and theoretically as a
parent their job is to bring their children up in the body of Christ.
You anti-child poseur Xtians need to get your Bibles examined. You sound
almost like atheists.
--
__________________________________________________________
Felipe Campos (fel...@uts.cc.utexas.edu) aka EgOiStE on Internet Relay Chat.
Systems Analyst
Learning Technology Center, College of Education, Univ. of Texas-Austin
Phone: (512)471-4154 ; Fax (512)471-4607
URL: http://egoiste.edb.utexas.edu/felipe.html
PShug39980
I wish more people were as responsible with their kids gary. I see parents
with their kids in my store regularly, and many times I have to repress the
urge to remind the parents that "they" are the adults. I have had several
occasions over the years where I finally had to step in and tell the parents to
either control their children or leave the premises. Sad, but true.
<< It has gotten to the point where you can't go into a restaurant without
ending up next to some couple with a screaming toddler, and the best the
parents can do to shut the toddler up is to say something like, "Let's be
quiet now, O-kaaaaaaaay?" (They always end every sentence to the child with
that "O-kaaaaaay?" as though they're asking the child's permission to
control his or her behavior.)
I raised two sons, each of whom is now in his twenties, off on his own,
and well-adjusted, as far as I can tell. Neither of them was EVER allowed,
at ANY age, to bother other people in a public place -- at least for no
longer than it took me or their mother to get them out of the room. We
considered it OUR responsibility to control our children's behavior in
public.
I suppose now that would be "child abuse".
gary>>
Peter@Thrills T-Shirt Co.
9722 Great Hills Trail #138
Austin TX 78759
All true wisdom is found on T-shirts.
jamie
Keiffers <keif...@SPAMCITYswbell.net> wrote:
>
>
>jamie wrote:
>
>> Personally I think that children who are not old enough to at least
>> understand when they are *supposed* to be quiet should not be brought to
>> church. Just because some churches will try to ignore noisy children
>> does not mean that it is a positive thing for everyone to have their
>> prayer and worship disrupted by your child. I think that you are the
>> ones being rude, bringing a one-year-old to church. If you feel that
>> your child needs to be brought to church with you that young, then you
>> ought to be attending a children's service with her, and not disrupting
>> an adult religious service.
>
>is dumb, right? A church is not the place to debate whether someone is rude
>or not. Church is the house of God and not some restaurant or movie theater
No, that's not what I said at all. Church is a house of worship, not a
house of infant and toddler playtime. Introduce children to religion as
young as you feel approporiate, but children not old enough to even
*understand* that they should be quiet in church (I'm not even saying
that they need to be able to actually BE quiet that long) are not old
enough to attend services, IMO. Church is not Chucky Cheeze, and
parents should be more considerate of the rest of the congregation.
Tracey
gary wrote:
>
> Tracey wrote in message <3502C7...@swbell.net>...
> >gary wrote:
> >> Hey! We don't want to hear your kid! If your kid can keep a sock in
> it,
> >> fine. If you can control your kid, fine. Otherwise, please -- take your
> >> kid and go away!
> >> gary
>
> >
> >Gary, I feel that you're being too harsh here. Common sense is not all
> >that common anymore, but there's no need to be rude about it.
>
> Really? You think THAT'S rude? (I DID say "please", you know.) What I
> find to be "rude" is the attitude of all the "progressive" young parents out
> there who think it's their RIGHT to inflict their noisy, aggressive little
> brats on the rest of us!
> ending up next to some couple with a screaming toddler, and the best the
> parents can do to shut the toddler up is to say something like, "Let's be
> quiet now, O-kaaaaaaaay?" (They always end every sentence to the child with
> that "O-kaaaaaay?" as though they're asking the child's permission to
> control his or her behavior.)
> I raised two sons, each of whom is now in his twenties, off on his own,
> and well-adjusted, as far as I can tell. Neither of them was EVER allowed,
> at ANY age, to bother other people in a public place -- at least for no
> longer than it took me or their mother to get them out of the room. We
> considered it OUR responsibility to control our children's behavior in
> public.
> I suppose now that would be "child abuse".
> gary
Thats great Gary! I was raised in the same way. You're right about the
child abuse thing. The left is crazy. They almost seem to be looking
for ways to take your children from you. I don't think we've made it
that far down the road, but the State thinks it knows far more than any
parent. A funny thing the left is pushing is notification of a
neighborhood when a sex offender moves in. My question is WILL HOPE BE
NOTIFIED IN THE SAME WAY WHEN PRESIDENT CLINTON MOVES BACK?
Tracey
EgOiStE-Felipe Campos wrote:
>
> What is wrong with all you morons? Do you realize what the purpose of
> children is? One of the very first commandments in biblical passage was
> to be fruitful and multiply. Perhaps you forgot all that jazz about
> "suffer unto the children" and "and a little child shall lead them".
> Church is a place where everyone should be welcome. In many a catholic
> church we have cry rooms for noisy babies, but that's not standard. Try
> going to a big hispanic church and you'd be mortified. Women whipping out
> their tits to breastfeed while we're injesting the body of Christ. Is
> that rude? No way. It's called the human condition and theoretically as a
> parent their job is to bring their children up in the body of Christ.
> You anti-child poseur Xtians need to get your Bibles examined. You sound
> almost like atheists.
Hey Campos, I'm saying that the order of the church comes before
anything else. Otherwise, the child crying may keep someone from
hearing the Good News. What's more important?
I do believe that it is rude for women to 'whip out their' breasts in
church. There is nothing wrong with breast feeding, but it should be
done very discreetly.
Tracey
PShug39980 wrote:
>
> I wish more people were as responsible with their kids gary. I see parents
> with their kids in my store regularly, and many times I have to repress the
> urge to remind the parents that "they" are the adults. I have had several
> occasions over the years where I finally had to step in and tell the parents to
> either control their children or leave the premises. Sad, but true.
Hey, make me a tee shirt with "Member of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy"
please! It needs to be white with a big Blue box on the front that
contains the above message in white print. I can't find them in the
Mall.
Tracey
PShug39980
<<Hey, make me a tee shirt with "Member of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy"
please! It needs to be white with a big Blue box on the front that
contains the above message in white print. I can't find them in the
Mall.
Tracey>>
I don't make t-shirts, I just sell them. The only political shirt I have says
"Republicans??? Democrats??? I don't know whose lies to believe anymore."
FDR
What? No "time out" for your kids? For Shame... they could be mentally
damaged!!! (*sarcasm*)
gary wrote in message ...
Conan The Librarian
In article <35038E...@swbell.net>, Tracey
<trac...@swbell.net> writes:
> [snip]
>
> A funny thing the left is pushing is notification of a
> neighborhood when a sex offender moves in.
I guess someone forgot to tell the ACLU then. They are
on record as opposing sex offender notification laws.
Also, the only member of the U.S. House to take the floor
in opposition to these laws when they came up for a vote in
1996 was a Democrat.
Face it, Tracey/David ... as much as you'd like to pin
everything bad that happens on "the left", the reality of
the situation is usually much more complicated.
But I know that's hard for you and your fellow dittobots
to comprehend.
Chuck Vance
Clayton Colwell
Keiffers (keif...@SPAMCITYswbell.net) wrote:
: So you're saying that by introducing your child at an early age to religion
: is dumb, right?
How much awareness can a 1-year-old *possibly* have of the concept
of religion? Please. The needs of the adults at their worship
are far more important than the needs of a 1-year-old to fuss
and disturb the rest of the congregation.
That said, I know of at least one Catholic church that has a
"mothers' chapel": this allows mothers (and fathers) with infants
or extreme youngsters to worship with minimal disturbance to the
rest of the congregation (the chapel is a mostly-soundproofed
room, with a speaker to allow the priest's and other parish-
ioners' voices to carry into the mothers' chapel).
****** Clay Colwell (aka StealthSmurf) ********** er...@bga.com ******
* "In the future, we will recognize software crashes as technologically *
* mandated ergonomic rest breaks - and we will pay extra for them." *
* -- Crazy Uncle Joe Hannibal *
EgOiStE-Felipe Campos
> Hey Campos, I'm saying that the order of the church comes before
>anything else. Otherwise, the child crying may keep someone from
>hearing the Good News. What's more important?
The order of the church? I suppose Jesus causing a havoc outside of the
Temple and knocking over the stands of the money changers would fit under
these auspices. What a rebel he was.
The order of the church does not come before anything else. The Holy
Roman Catholic Church thought this and burned many a person. It's the
PEOPLE who are first in the Church. The body of Christ is its people, not
the order, not its ritual, not its catechism. Anyone who listens hard
enough will hear the message of God. Many who hear it, like some of the
folks replying to this thread hear it without any children crying yet do
not receive the message. I'm not saying you should let your child run
wild. But some of the attitude here about "inflicting" people with your
children goes completely contrary to what I believe.
Jesus loves the little children, all the children of the world. Red and
yellow, black and white, they are precious in his sight. Jesus loves the
little children of the world.
Jesus loves me this I know, for the Bible tells me so. Little ones to him
belong. They are weak but he is strong.
Robert Schroeder
Clayton Colwell wrote:
>
> Keiffers (keif...@SPAMCITYswbell.net) wrote:
>
> : So you're saying that by introducing your child at an early age to religion
> : is dumb, right?
>
> How much awareness can a 1-year-old *possibly* have of the concept
> of religion? Please. The needs of the adults at their worship
> are far more important than the needs of a 1-year-old to fuss
> and disturb the rest of the congregation.
I would tend to agree with you on this point Clayton, but I remember a
Southern Baptist pastor back in the '70's who was preaching. A couple
of rows in front of me, a mother was trying to quiet her baby, who was
just cooing and laughing. The mother started up to take the baby out,
but the preacher stopped her, saying, "stay right where you are, little
mother....that baby's cooings is just like the songs of the angels."
Of course, I came from a era that did not have cry chapels and children
were expected to remain quiet during church. No, we were expected to
behave and if we didn't, we lived in fear of "THE LOOK" from our mother,
which meant that when we got out of church, we were going to get it.
Of course, my views are also colored by the fact that the denomination I
belong too was not allowed to have children at church for many years.
In fact, I remember having police officers coming into the sanctuary
looking for children. Our pastor was visited by the chief of police and
was warned that if they ever found a child in our church, the entire
congregation was going to jail.
Why? The church was predominately gay and lesbian.
Of course, today this is not a problem. I for one welcome the kids in
church.
Robert
gary
EgOiStE-Felipe Campos wrote in message ...
>What is wrong with all you morons?
OK, right there I begin to doubt the depth of the Christianity of anyone
who begins his post with "What is wrong with all you morons?". Somehow, it
doesn't sound all that "Christian" to me.
>Do you realize what the purpose of
>children is?
Uh, yeah. Have more children. That's about it, genetically-speaking.
>One of the very first commandments in biblical passage was
>to be fruitful and multiply.
And that was written when the middle East was significantly less populated
than it is now (forget the rest of the world, which they didn't even know
about) and the Jews were in a population war with their neighbors (as, I
suppose, they still are).
> Perhaps you forgot all that jazz about
>"suffer unto the children" and "and a little child shall lead them".
Yes, I wonder exactly what is meant by all that particular "jazz" other than
being nifty rhetoric. Children, in general, need to be lead, rather than be
leading. Too many children "leading" is part of our problem. And too many
adult "leaders" acting like children (B. Clinton, that means you.)
>Church is a place where everyone should be welcome.
And you SHOULD go to a church where that includes crying babies, stinking
winos, constantly babbling schizophrenics, and serial killers lurking near
the exits, if that's what you want. But most people, I suspect, don't want
that.
>In many a catholic
>church we have cry rooms for noisy babies, but that's not standard. Try
>going to a big hispanic church and you'd be mortified. Women whipping out
>their tits to breastfeed while we're injesting the body of Christ. Is
>that rude?
No, it's just another subject. I don't think anyone has complained here
about breast-feeding in church. In fact, if the originally complained-about
mother had stuck that baby on the tit, the original complaining letter would
probably not have been written. (But, as I recall, it was a toddler, not a
baby. Well, stick it on the tit, anyway. In fact, stick ME on the tit, and
I might start going to church again!)
> No way. It's called the human condition and theoretically as a
>parent their job is to bring their children up in the body of Christ.
>You anti-child poseur Xtians need to get your Bibles examined. You sound
>almost like atheists.
I probably sound "almost like an atheist" because I am an agnostic
Buddhist, which is, in fact, "almost like an atheist". But I was brought up
a Christian, and was steeped in fundamentalist Christian teachings.
Based on that, in my opinion, anyone who REALLY followed the Christian
teachings would sell all he or she had, give it all to "the poor" and hit
the road, doing "good". And IMO, one of the best "good" things you could do
would be to hang around outside churches, movie theaters, and restaurants,
volunteering yourself to take care of all the obnoxious screaming babies so
everyone else could hear themselves think. Why don't you do that?
gary
Robert Schroeder
jamie wrote:
>
> EgOiStE-Felipe Campos <fel...@uts.cc.utexas.edu> wrote:
> >In article <35038F...@swbell.net>, trac...@swbell.net wrote:
> >
> >> Hey Campos, I'm saying that the order of the church comes before
> >>anything else. Otherwise, the child crying may keep someone from
> >>hearing the Good News. What's more important?
> >
> >The order of the church? I suppose Jesus causing a havoc outside of the
> >Temple and knocking over the stands of the money changers would fit under
> >these auspices. What a rebel he was.
>
> If was also in the marketplace outside the temple, not inside
> the holy-of-holies.
I don't know about that. I would call bright lights, loud singing at
all hours of the night, those smelly shepherds and those wise guys and
their entourage as being a little disturbing to those living in
Bethlehem.
>
> Jesus was Jewish. Jewish tradition considers children under 6 (I think
> it's 6, but I'm not positive) to be below the age of reason, and they do
> not participate in religious activities.
And I agree here....we need to allow our children to be children. But
as I said, there was a time when not all churches had cry rooms or
children's church. I grew up in such a congregation. Parents dealt
with it as best as they could and those around understood.
And this bothers me...I mean, tracey with her pro-life stance saying
that all children have a right to be born, but they don't have the right
to be in church untill they can be quiet. Isn't this just a little
hypocritical???
Robert
jamie
EgOiStE-Felipe Campos <fel...@uts.cc.utexas.edu> wrote:
>In article <35038F...@swbell.net>, trac...@swbell.net wrote:
>
>> Hey Campos, I'm saying that the order of the church comes before
>>anything else. Otherwise, the child crying may keep someone from
>>hearing the Good News. What's more important?
>
>The order of the church? I suppose Jesus causing a havoc outside of the
>Temple and knocking over the stands of the money changers would fit under
>these auspices. What a rebel he was.
Jesus created his havoc as an adult, not as a noisy infant.
If was also in the marketplace outside the temple, not inside
the holy-of-holies.
Jesus was Jewish. Jewish tradition considers children under 6 (I think
it's 6, but I'm not positive) to be below the age of reason, and they do
not participate in religious activities.
--
gary
Robert Schroeder wrote
>I don't know about that. I would call bright lights, loud singing at
>all hours of the night, those smelly shepherds and those wise guys and
>their entourage as being a little disturbing to those living in
>Bethlehem.
Hard to make much sense of an argument when you so freely mix in religious
mythology. And badly-retold mythology at that. Not anything in the
Bethlehem story that suggests anything but a quiet pastoral scene, off in a
barnyard somewhere, that I recall.
>And this bothers me...I mean, tracey with her pro-life stance saying
>that all children have a right to be born, but they don't have the right
>to be in church untill they can be quiet. Isn't this just a little
>hypocritical???
No. If you accept the stance that "children have a right to be born"
that would not mean that you would logically have to accept that they
necessarily had the "right" to behaviors later in life that interfered with
the peaceful enjoyment of life by others. I doubt that the most dedicated
pro-lifer thinks that children should have the right to set fires, and who
finds that illogical?
A person has to comport himself in accordance with society's rules, or
suffer the consequences. Church members and visitors, and their children,
must comport themselves in accordance with the church's rules, or suffer the
consequences. If they don't like the rules, they should stay out of the
church.
If you think children should be allowed to babble and otherwise disturb
other church members without being asked to leave, then why should not
nudists be allowed to attend sans clothes without being asked to leave? Why
shouldn't athiests be allowed to come and argue with the minisister during
the sermon?
Well, all of this COULD be allowed, if the church wanted it that way.
But, in the end, your church = your rules, as long as you stay within the
law.
gary
Robert Turk
gary wrote:
> >Church is a place where everyone should be welcome.
>
> And you SHOULD go to a church where that includes crying babies, stinking
> winos, constantly babbling schizophrenics, and serial killers lurking near
> the exits, if that's what you want. But most people, I suspect, don't want
> that.
Wow, what a conflation! Crying babies compared with winos, the mentally
ill, and serial killers. What an amazing assertion!
Babies cry to communicate. Parents with babies should comfort the child
and remove him or her from the church, or movie theater, or whatever.
But unless a church doesn't want the patronage of young families, then
they should deal with the crying of infants. Sometimes that means to
practice a little patience and understanding.
What about the coughing of the infirm, and the snoring of the
exhausted? Or the wheezing of asthmatics? Do you sound-conscious,
pious individuals have something against these other distractions, or is
it specifically anger at parents with infants?
--
Robert Bryan Turk Phone: (512) 823-9932
http://turk.austin.ibm.com/ http://www.megalith.com
mailto:rt...@us.ibm.com mailto:rt...@megalith.com
gary
Robert Turk wrote in message <3517FBD6...@us.ibm.com>...
>gary wrote:
>
>> >Church is a place where everyone should be welcome.
>>
>> And you SHOULD go to a church where that includes crying babies, stinking
>> winos, constantly babbling schizophrenics, and serial killers lurking
near
>> the exits, if that's what you want. But most people, I suspect, don't
want
>> that.
>
>
>Wow, what a conflation! Crying babies compared with winos, the mentally
>ill, and serial killers. What an amazing assertion!
If you think that is what is meant by the above paragraph, it's probably
pointless to discuss anything with you. But I can hope that you are just
setting up a strawman as a way of arguing your point.
Obviously, the point is that YOU (or someone else) should go to a church
that includes whomever you want it to include, even if that includes serial
killers lurking near the exits. On the other hand, if I (or someone else)
wants a church (or other establishment) where we don't have to put up with
crying babies, we should choose one.
What I think is ludicrous is the crying baby contingent's assertion that,
since crying babies are so damn WONDERFUL the rest of us should just keep
our mouths shut and put up with them. That's a totalitarian point of view,
(mostly typical of leftists, btw).
>Babies cry to communicate.
Really? I thought they just did it to irritate the hell out of me! What a
concept!
> Parents with babies should comfort the child
>and remove him or her from the church, or movie theater, or whatever.
>But unless a church doesn't want the patronage of young families, then
>they should deal with the crying of infants. Sometimes that means to
>practice a little patience and understanding.
Well, I don't go to church. Gave it up almost 40 years ago and NEVER
missed it! But I have been known to spend some time in a Zendo, where crying
babies, or anyone else who makes noise, would be politely asked to leave.
>
>What about the coughing of the infirm, and the snoring of the
>exhausted? Or the wheezing of asthmatics? Do you sound-conscious,
>pious individuals have something against these other distractions, or is
>it specifically anger at parents with infants?
Pious? This objection does NOT come from the pious, at least MY part of
it! It comes from those who dislike listening to obnoxious, bawling infants
instead of what they came to listen to. And NO, I would not care to listen
to any of the above noises you mention. Those people should all go outside,
with the screaming babies. Or keep quiet.
gary
========================================
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof...
Robert Turk
gary wrote:
>
> Robert Turk wrote in message <3517FBD6...@us.ibm.com>...
> >gary wrote:
>
> What I think is ludicrous is the crying baby contingent's assertion that,
> since crying babies are so damn WONDERFUL the rest of us should just keep
> our mouths shut and put up with them. That's a totalitarian point of view,
> (mostly typical of leftists, btw).
And you say I used a straw man argument? Better hit the Logic 101
books!
I didn't say anything about what you or anyone else should do. I just
asked a few questions, and your answers speak volumes.
> And NO, I would not care to listen
> to any of the above noises you mention. Those people should all go outside,
> with the screaming babies. Or keep quiet.
So it's settled then. Anyone who makes a noise in public is to "go
outside" or somehow keep quiet. Yeah, now we're talking
Totalitarianism! Cool!
gary
Robert Turk
>So it's settled then. Anyone who makes a noise in public is to "go
>outside" or somehow keep quiet. Yeah, now we're talking
>Totalitarianism! Cool!
Is that what YOU learned in Logic 101? Glad I missed it.
Yeah. Anyone who makes noise in a location like a church, or the movies,
where the vast majority of other people there don't want noise should "go
outside" or somehow keep quiet. Yeah. Absolutely. That's totalitarian?
Your right to make noise whenever and wherever you want ends when your
noise reaches my ears. But up to that point, go for it! Actually, I think
that's a basic principle of Libertarianism.
Robert Turk
gary wrote:
>
> Robert Turk
> >So it's settled then. Anyone who makes a noise in public is to "go
> >outside" or somehow keep quiet. Yeah, now we're talking
> >Totalitarianism! Cool!
>
> Is that what YOU learned in Logic 101? Glad I missed it.
> Yeah. Anyone who makes noise in a location like a church, or the movies,
> where the vast majority of other people there don't want noise should "go
> outside" or somehow keep quiet. Yeah. Absolutely. That's totalitarian?
> Your right to make noise whenever and wherever you want ends when your
> noise reaches my ears. But up to that point, go for it! Actually, I think
> that's a basic principle of Libertarianism.
Aw, Gary, I think you would have made some terrific contributions to
discussions in an intro to logic class!
I think that a regimented, general public silence would be more
totalitarian than for folks to just sort of deal with noises. If
someone with a kid refuses to (or is incapable of) be polite then that's
another story. But forbidding sounds in public seems akin to mandating
the shepherding of cats.
Question -- does my right to speak similarly end when my voice reaches
your ears? Or just random noises, like coughing, crying, etc.
Mike Dahmus
In <351ACEA6...@us.ibm.com>, Robert Turk <rt...@us.ibm.com> writes:
>I think that a regimented, general public silence would be more
>totalitarian than for folks to just sort of deal with noises.
But why is it that the yuppie-with-kids crew is so hypocritical about noise?
I mean, they are the typification of NIMBY when it comes to "noisy" development
near their homes (commercial development, planes, car traffic, calling the
cops on teenagers who play loud music, etc.), but when it comes to their
beloved kids, suddenly the rules change and noise is something to "just
sort of deal with"?
---
Mike Dahmus http://www.io.com/~mdahmus/
Java for OS/2 Development Disclaimer: Not an official IBM spokesman
