Bigotry, Xtianity and Johanna Draper Carlson
Alan David Doane
In a sarcastic post on the Comic Book Galaxy message board, in a
response to a post that mentioned some consider Preacher
anti-Christian, I gave the dictionary definition of a bigot, and said
in regard to xtianity, "Damn, guilty as charged." This resulted in a
scorched-earth demand from Johanna Draper Carlson that I apologize to
her and either stifle my opinions in perpetuity, or she would leave
the site. I apologized for offending her personally, and told her that
I have always respected her and regretted if my remarks and opinions
hurt her personally. But I did not, and never would, agree to restrain
my opinions or co-opt my freedom of speech. Especially not on a web
site I created.
She now refers to me as a bigot, which has really prompted me to
examine the question of what is a bigot?
Kurt Busiek made a good distinction between discriminating against
someone for what they are born as -- gay, black -- as opposed to what
a grown adult has chosen to believe.
Am I bigoted against xtians? It would be more accurate, if I were
trying to remove all humour and sarcasm from the discussion, to say I
am bigoted against xtianity in general. As a philosophy. As a way of
controlling people and their money. As a manner of destroying the
individuality and spirit of people and crushing their passions and
intellectual capacity.
Sure, there have been individual xtians I have been friends with; one,
right now, is one of my best friends, a radio news director named Joe.
He's a catholic. Catholics consider themselves xtians, or as they
prefer to spell it, "Christians."
Growing up in the deep south, as a student of Berean Christian Academy
and a member of the Berean Baptist Church, one of the things I was
taught, from a variety of pastors, was that catholics are all going to
hell. We were taught to pity them, because they were idol-worshipping
pagans. Southern Baptists see catholic standards like statues of Mary
and such as idolatry. Bible verses were taught to us to back up this
opinion. We were taught that the catholic bible, containing the
apocrypha, is evil.
This is quite typical of the fear-and-hate (or as they abbreviate it,
"faith")-based philosophies of most of the xtians I have known
personally. On my personal web site, The Ministry of Disinformation
and Popular Enlightenment, in the True Stories section there is a
story called Radio Antichrist. It's about a former boss of mine who
tortured those under him mentally and physically, had numerous sexual
affairs while married, resulting in at least one illegitimate child,
stole thousands of dollars in merchandise from the radio station by
selling commercials to clients and taking cars and furniture in trade,
playing the commercials on his show, and never telling the station
about ANY of it--and was perhaps the most pious, bible-thumping man I
have had the displeasure to known personally in the past 20 years. He
has also been suspected by family members of molesting his young
step-son, and he tried to molest co-workers both male and female. He
ends every radio show with "God Bless."
As Dave Barry might say, "I swear I am not making this up."
The very principles of "faith" state that you should not question
authority--whether it is your pastor, diocese, or the ultimate "higher
authority," Jesus H. Christ or his Holy Father, the endlessly
compassionate G-O-D, who created H-E-L-L so YOU can BURN for ALL TIME
if you don't capitulate to his endlessly amorphous demands as spelled
out in The Bible. Whichever Bible you happen to have placed your faith
in, of course.
My feelings on faith are spelled out pretty clearly in an essay called
"The Rush to Mysticism." It's in the essays section of Elution web
site. The essay was written over a year ago, and has recently been
called "a fairly thoughtful essay," by Kurt Busiek. So for the
endlessly self-righteous and CB Galaxy-obsessed "griffinmill," a guy
named Jason, to imply in his message board post "Does Tom Brevoort
Know About Your Opinions?", that I have somehow been trying to pull
the wool over anyone's eyes is more than a bit disingenuous. I have
been more than willing to engage in a dialogue about xtianity and
faith online since I first got Internet access five or six years ago,
and have done so numerous times. There's no way anyone can claim my
opinions have somehow been hidden or obscured.
I despise mysticism. I despise oppression. Religion, organized
religion, is all about those two activities. I hold freedom to be the
highest good, and the greatest of humanity's aspirations and
achievements. Organized religion is diametrically opposed to freedom,
except the free ride they get because they've hoodwinked the
government into allowing them to operate tax-free.
This does not mean I am against spirituality, or that I don't believe
there might be more to the universe that it would at first appear. I
happen to believe that genuine religious epiphanies and paranormal
phenomena such as so-called alien abduction and visitor experiences,
are all reflections of the same experience; humanity somehow touching
the next level of our development as a conscious species. I can
recommend some books on this topic if you're interested; e-mail me if
you are.
Organized religion, on the other hand, has for thousands of years,
especially in the Western Hemisphere, been used by opportunistic
vultures to line their own coffers ("tithing") and secure sexual
partners through the use of predatory sexual practices (Jim Bakker,
for example, or Jimmy Swaggert, or the catholic priest of your
choice). Organized religion certainly backs up the theory that most
people, most of the time, are worried about either survival (cash) or
reproduction (sex), whether they realize it or not.
The fraud and oppression of organized religion, especially "The
World's Tragedy," xtianity, is well and thoroughly documented. The
evidence is there for all to see, at least, all who are willing and
capable of seeing. Jesus Christ never lived; he was an amalgamation of
previous pagan gods--the stories, the myths, no matter how they
resonate with us subconsciously, remain myths. A powerful myth is
still a myth. A powerful lie is still a lie, no matter how pervasive,
or how badly people might want to believe it.
So, am I a bigot?
I don't hate anyone, anywhere, for what they were born as. Do I hate
xtianity? Yes. I hate other forms of ignorance as well (don't even get
me started on the brutal, primitive, lucrative practice of doctors
forcing circumcision on gullible parents all too willing to mutilate
their sons; or daughters, if we talk about some parts of Africa), but
xtianity was the one we were talking about on the message board, and
it's the one I chose to discuss here.
Do I hate individual xtians?
Only the ones that give me a reason to. Does that include Johanna
Draper Carlson? Of course not.
I am extremely disappointed she chose to bolt from the site after only
the most superficial discussion of what could have been a very
interesting and enlightening debate. She clearly will not tolerate the
diversity of opinion that is the goal of the Comic Book Galaxy. But it
should be noted, I never censored her, or anyone else. I will tolerate
just about any opinion on the site or on the message board, even
though ultimately I have the power not to. I'm open-minded enough to
believe that there is value in discussing differences of opinion. That
a self-professed "Christian" would not be willing to do the same comes
as no real surprise, and only reinforces my overall impression of the
xtians I have personally know as small-minded, fearful, doubtful
little creatures living in a very fragile world where the first sign
of a cloud on the horizon results in plywood on the windows and weeks
in the basement to ride out the shitstorm.
Recommended reading:
The Christ Conspiracy by Acharya S
The Breakdown of Consciousness in the Bicameral Mind by Julian Jaynes
The World's Tragedy by Aleister Crowley
Man and His Gods by Homer Smith
Alan David Doane
Editor-in-Chief
Comic Book Galaxy
Jerry B. Ray, Jr.
Alan David Doane <alandav...@yahoo.communication.breakdown> wrote:
>Sure, there have been individual xtians I have been friends with; one,
>right now, is one of my best friends, a radio news director named Joe.
"Some of my best friends are black." :-)
>Growing up in the deep south, as a student of Berean Christian Academy
>and a member of the Berean Baptist Church, one of the things I was
>taught, from a variety of pastors, was that catholics are all going to
>hell.
First off, I find this quite enlightening. It often seems like those
most vehemently opposed to Christianity were brought up in it. More
often than not, it turns out that they had a bad experience (which can
range from "somebody was rude to them at church," to "their parents were
really strict and fundamentalist"), and at the first opportunity they
throw themselves to the opposite extreme and crusade against Christianity
with the zeal of a traveling evangelist.
>We were taught to pity them, because they were idol-worshipping
>pagans. Southern Baptists see catholic standards like statues of Mary
>and such as idolatry. Bible verses were taught to us to back up this
>opinion. We were taught that the catholic bible, containing the
>apocrypha, is evil.
Here we have a potential for "a bad experience," I suppose. I've
been a member of Southern Baptist churches my whole life (three
different churches, and I've been to plenty more), and I've never
heard the topic of Catholicism even brought up, let alone preached
against. Seriously. Not once, that I can recall, and I have a
good memory.
[snip anecdote about nasty coworker]
>He has also been suspected by family members of molesting his young
>step-son, and he tried to molest co-workers both male and female. He
>ends every radio show with "God Bless."
Another bad experience. Have you ever stopped to consider that all
of these things are diametrically opposed to the fundamental teachings
of Christianity, which can be summed up as "love God and love your
neighbor"? I'm a Christian, and I get REALLY pissed off at people
who claim the name of Christ with their words and sully it with their
actions. I get really pissed off at people who twist the Bible to
support their own biases. I get really pissed off at people who try
to make the church into a political institution. There's plenty done
in the name of Christianity that's deserving of your (and my) hatred,
I grant you. But occasionally people get it right, so to speak, and
much good can come of it. I suppose it's easier to toss it all out
and paint Christianity and Christians with a broad brush than to
cling to the good and condemn the bad more selectively. (After all,
90% of EVERYTHING is shit, or so I hear, and I see no reason why
that couldn't be true of the amazingly broad belief sets that fall
under "Christianity," or of the amazingly broad population that calls
itself "Christian."
Anyway, I didn't really want to get involved in this discussion, but
I've said my piece and I'll re-lurk.
JRjr
--
%%%%% Jerry B. Ray, Jr. %%%%%%%% www.prism.gatech.edu/~vapspwi %%%%%%%%%%%
"Some will shake off the sloth of faithlessness
While others simply languish in their sleep
Me, I just fight to stay awake..." -- VOL, "Black Cloud O'er Me"
Flashfire
I can imagine the sparks that would fly if you ever got into a debate with Mike
Miller about religion. :-)
James
-----------
Remove 'motion' from e-mail address to reply via e-mail.
Alan David Doane
Jr.) wrote:
>In article <8riekq$nj5$0...@206.231.153.27>,
>Alan David Doane <alandav...@yahoo.communication.breakdown> wrote:
>
>>Sure, there have been individual xtians I have been friends with; one,
>>right now, is one of my best friends, a radio news director named Joe.
>
>"Some of my best friends are black." :-)
>
>>Growing up in the deep south, as a student of Berean Christian Academy
>>and a member of the Berean Baptist Church, one of the things I was
>>taught, from a variety of pastors, was that catholics are all going to
>>hell.
>
>First off, I find this quite enlightening. It often seems like those
>most vehemently opposed to Christianity were brought up in it. More
>often than not, it turns out that they had a bad experience (which can
>range from "somebody was rude to them at church," to "their parents were
>really strict and fundamentalist"), and at the first opportunity they
>throw themselves to the opposite extreme and crusade against Christianity
>with the zeal of a traveling evangelist.
Not at the first opportunity. If you were capable of reading a little
further, I went on to describe relationships with xtianms, good and
bad, that reach to the present day. However, you have fulfilled
Usenet's quota of at least one post per day setting up a false
statement by the object of your criticism and then attacking him for
it.
>Another bad experience. Have you ever stopped to consider that all
>of these things are diametrically opposed to the fundamental teachings
>of Christianity, which can be summed up as "love God and love your
>neighbor"?
Sadly, none of the xtians I am presently acquainted with, other than
Joe, as mentioned in the post, display that kind of behaviour. He
seems to be the exception that proves the rule, at least out of the
xtians I have known. And I'm sorry, but other than famous evil xtians
like Jimmy Swaggert and Jim Bakker and Jerry Falwell and Pat
Robertson, and other than ones I have known, I really can't say. I'm
sure there's a lot of nice xtians out there.
There still living their lives based on a fraudulent religion, though.
Alan David Doane
http://www.comicbookgalaxy.com
Aaron Michael Newton
I have only one real question. Why use "xtian?"
-Aaron
--
****
Aaron Newton - fign...@louisville.edu - IRC: FigNewton
Omarichu
Did you think anyone actually cared about what you had to say? Think again.
---
"I pledge allegiance to the snow of the United snow of America. And to the
republic for which it snows, one nation, under snow, indi-snow-ible, with
liberty and justice for snow." Man reading patriotic plaque immediately
following a snowstorm.
Alan David Doane
<amne...@louisville.edu> wrote:
>
>
>I have only one real question. Why use "xtian?"
>
>-Aaron
Why use "x-mas?"
It's quicker.
Hate the xtianity, not the xtian, that's my new motto.
Aaron Michael Newton
: It's quicker.
The reason I ask is because it reads, whenever you use it, almost as if it
is intended as an insulting term. If it isn't intended that way, that's
fine, but you might take that into consideration.
: Hate the xtianity, not the xtian, that's my new motto.
As a christian, I can say that there is a lot of supposed "christianity"
today that I too despise, so I can't find complete fault with that motto.
Alan David Doane
>>Xtianity, Bigotry and Johanna Draper Carlson
>
>Did you think anyone actually cared about what you had to say? Think again.
Yes, I can see from the dearth of posts on the topic that the
tumbleweed is blowing through Doaneville.
I wish!
Alan David Doane
<amne...@louisville.edu> wrote:
>Alan David Doane <alandav...@yahoo.communication.breakdown> wrote:
>: Why use "x-mas?"
>
>: It's quicker.
>
>The reason I ask is because it reads, whenever you use it, almost as if it
>is intended as an insulting term. If it isn't intended that way, that's
>fine, but you might take that into consideration.
You should read Dr. Laura's comments on why conservatives call gays
"homosexuals" sometime.
mrcr...@my-deja.com
alandav...@yahoo.communication.breakdown (Alan David Doane) wrote:
> Xtianity, Bigotry and Johanna Draper Carlson
>
Uhm... is this another sarcastic post???
Take care,
mrcreeper
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Dave Rose
Dave
Jerry B. Ray, Jr.
Alan David Doane <alandav...@yahoo.communication.breakdown> wrote:
>Not at the first opportunity. If you were capable of reading a little
>further,
No need to be snide. I read it, and as I was reading it it occurred
to me that I've read it all before. You're hardly the only anti-Christian
crusader on Usenet (you should come over to rec.music.christian and
chat with Jason Steiner and Brian Trosko, two of our more vocal
Christian-baiters over there), afterall. Seemed like a waste of time
(yours and mine) to address it point-by-point. There's nothing
new under the sun. :-)
>>Another bad experience. Have you ever stopped to consider that all
>>of these things are diametrically opposed to the fundamental teachings
>>of Christianity, which can be summed up as "love God and love your
>>neighbor"?
>Sadly, none of the xtians I am presently acquainted with, other than
>Joe, as mentioned in the post, display that kind of behaviour.
Well, certainly nobody's perfect. I try to live up to that ideal, and
fail daily, so I get up and try again. Your attitude toward Christians
would seem to present those you encounter with a challenge to their
ability to love you as their neighbor. :-) Still, I find it hard
to believe that ALL the Christians (save one) that you know are
evil rat-bastards. And I'd also venture that some of the people
that you encounter that aren't evil rat-bastards are Christians,
and you don't even know it. We don't all wear "WWJD" t-shirts, hats,
and bracelets, after all.
>There still living their lives based on a fraudulent religion, though.
I bet you're fun at Sunday School parties. ;-)
Jerry B. Ray, Jr.
Alan David Doane <alandav...@yahoo.communication.breakdown> wrote:
>You should read Dr. Laura's comments on why conservatives call gays
>"homosexuals" sometime.
Have the winds of Political Correctness shifted again? I can't keep
track of what I'm supposed to call "those people" anymore, so when I
encounter them I just call 'em "Matt" and "Chris" and stuff like that.
(My favorite recent PC story? An Olympic correspondent referring to
an athlete from, like, Zaire or somewhere, as an "African American.")
The Brandon Who Rowed Christopher Columbus Ashore
<ecl...@webbworks.com> wrote:
> What does any of this have to do with comics?
and on the third day he penciled AND inked AND colored.
and it was good.
--
-Brandon Blatcher (spamblocked, remove fingers to reply)
yeah.
Thomas Galloway
Johanna can, if she wants, post a rebuttal since she was personally
referenced. IMO, anyway).
No offense to either Alan or Johanna, but I think we've seen enough
posts about the comicbookgalaxy situation for people to have made up
their own minds about whether Alan, Johanna, both, or neither were right
or wrong in statements and actions taken. I believe the initial posts
are still up at the site as well.
My point being that this has quickly moved beyond the somewhat comic
related reviewer leaving a comics reviewing site and both sides giving
their version of events to the relatively generic "Christianity: Threat
or Menace/Christianity: Salvation or Good Set of Teachings" thread. While
normally it's not worth net.copping threads that drift beyond an initial
comics setting, past Usenet experience shows that this is the sort of
thread drift which can both go on for a *very* long time, and which, as
seen by this specific thread, start spinning off into other threads and
posts which can overwhelm a newsgroup (see rec.arts.sf.written for a
current example of how political threads, which the generic religion
threads act similar to, are making the group hard to use).
Note that I'm not saying either side is wrong or right or in what percentage
thereof. I just want this and related threads which have turned into
pure religion arguments to stop.
Or at least go over to rac.other-media just to see how that'd influence
the CFV. :-)
tyg t...@panix.com
jaye...@my-deja.com
> My point being that this has quickly moved beyond the
> somewhat comic related reviewer leaving a comics
> reviewing site and both sides giving their version of
> events to the relatively generic "Christianity: Threat
> or Menace/Christianity: Salvation or Good Set of
> Teachings" thread.
I dunno, Tom. It's too early. No one's mentioned Hitler yet...
--- jayembee (Jerry.B...@eds.com)
"Listening to you, I can't help but think that somewhere
in the world a village is missing its idiot."
Kevin J. Maroney
>I'd like to strongly urge people not to continue this thread (save that
>Johanna can, if she wants, post a rebuttal since she was personally
>referenced. IMO, anyway).
You're completely right. I will take a white chip.
--
Kevin J. Maroney | Unplugged Games | kmar...@ungames.com
"Love doesn't have a point. Love *is* the point."--Alan Moore
Johanna Draper Carlson
> I'd like to strongly urge people not to continue this thread (save that
> Johanna can, if she wants, post a rebuttal since she was personally
> referenced. IMO, anyway).
No need; at this point it's far removed from what actually happened and the
point of the announcement. Part of my discomfort with the whole situation
was that this kind of discussion has nothing to do with comics in the first
place.
> I just want this and related threads which have turned into
> pure religion arguments to stop.
An excellent idea. Thanks for stepping forward.
Johanna Draper Carlson joh...@comicsworthreading.com
Reviews of Comics Worth Reading -- http://www.comicsworthreading.com
Graeme
message news:8riekq$nj5$0...@206.231.153.27...
After reading Alan's CBG comments and "essay" yesterday, it occurred to me
that if I'd read them on a newsgroup I'd have killfiled him as a troll.
Having read through this post to see if he had anything more to add, I've
become convinced of this.
Graeme
Todd VerBeek
>After reading Alan's CBG comments and "essay" yesterday, it occurred to me
>that if I'd read them on a newsgroup I'd have killfiled him as a troll.
>Having read through this post to see if he had anything more to add, I've
>become convinced of this.
I can't help wondering how much I've "missed" (and whether I should care) due
to the fact that I already don't bother reading a thing =either= of them
posts. They =both= love to provoke people just for the sake of it, and
routinely indulge in it.
Side note: For anyone who feels they =must= continue discussing this, could
you =please= stop abbreviating the name of the site as "CBG"? To most comics
fans that means "Comics Buyers' Guide", and I'd hate for someone to stumble
into this mess and think that the original CBG has anything to do with it.
Cheers, Todd
billb...@my-deja.com
t...@panix.com (Thomas Galloway) wrote:
> Note that I'm not saying either side is wrong or right or in what
> turned into pure religion arguments to stop.
Who are you supposed to be again?
billb...@my-deja.com
Todd VerBeek <TVer...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> I can't help wondering how much I've "missed" (and whether I should
> care) due to the fact that I already don't bother reading a thing
> =either= of them posts.
I can't help wondering why you need to tell us this.
David Welsh
alandav...@yahoo.communication.breakdown (Alan David Doane) wrote:
> Recommended reading:
> The Breakdown of Consciousness in the Bicameral Mind by Julian Jaynes
The actual title of this book is _The Origin of Consciousness in the
Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind_. IMO it's an excellent work.
ObComics: In the Byrne/Claremont X-Men, The Beast was once shown
reading this (holding it with his foot). Duty called and he threw the
book down, saying something like "I'll wait until the movie comes out."
David Welsh
--
"The writer of this article is the owner of one of the most remarkable
black cats in the world-- and this is saying much; for it will be
remembered that black cats are all of them witches."
Edgar Allan Poe
Todd VerBeek
>> care) due to the fact that I already don't bother reading a thing
>> =either= of them posts.
Our friend billb...@my-deja.com said:
>I can't help wondering why you need to tell us this.
Who are you supposed to be again?
* plonk *
Hal Shipman
Jr.) wrote:
>In article <8riekq$nj5$0...@206.231.153.27>,
>Alan David Doane <alandav...@yahoo.communication.breakdown> wrote:
>
>>We were taught to pity them, because they were idol-worshipping
>>pagans. Southern Baptists see catholic standards like statues of Mary
>>and such as idolatry. Bible verses were taught to us to back up this
>>opinion. We were taught that the catholic bible, containing the
>>apocrypha, is evil.
>
>Here we have a potential for "a bad experience," I suppose. I've
>been a member of Southern Baptist churches my whole life (three
>different churches, and I've been to plenty more), and I've never
>heard the topic of Catholicism even brought up, let alone preached
>against. Seriously. Not once, that I can recall, and I have a
>good memory.
I do have to defend this one point, though I vehemently disagree with
everything else in ADD's post. I have had this mentioned a number of
times to me by fundamentalists in college (only one was SB, I recall).
Not in quite these terms, but yes, I was "technically" an idolator and
just as damned as a Jew. Specifically, it was the concept of
intercession/the communion of saints that they had problems with.
Hal.
billb...@my-deja.com
Why do you ask questions when you are afraid of the answers?
Rich Johnston
>Who are you supposed to be again?
>
>* plonk *
That sounded just like Elayne... freaky!
Rich Johnston twis...@hotmail.com
All The Rage and Rich's Rumblings at http://www.silverbulletcomicbooks.com
Ramblings 2000 at http://come.to/ramblings & http://www.twistandshoutcomics.com
Selling lots of comics at http://www.geocities.com/evenwood/sale.html
Todd VerBeek
>>Who are you supposed to be again?
>>
>>* plonk *
Our friend Rich Johnston said:
>That sounded just like Elayne... freaky!
Actually, I was imitating this new troll billboxer... you know, repeating his
own words back at him?
Cheers, Todd
--
I'm an optimist: the glass is empty, but maybe =someday= it'll be half full.
Talon The Merciless
>
>In article <8rl7gc$o9c$0...@207.51.148.239>, Todd says...
>
>>Who are you supposed to be again?
>>
>>* plonk *
>
What's really freaky is that they use the same make-up.
Talon T M
Absolute Ruler of RACM
What is Truth?
Michael Alan Chary
Johanna Draper Carlson <joh...@comicsworthreading.com> wrote:
>Thomas Galloway at t...@panix.com wrote:
>
>> I'd like to strongly urge people not to continue this thread (save that
>> Johanna can, if she wants, post a rebuttal since she was personally
>> referenced. IMO, anyway).
>
>No need; at this point it's far removed from what actually happened and the
>point of the announcement. Part of my discomfort with the whole situation
>was that this kind of discussion has nothing to do with comics in the first
>place.
Then why the hell did you post here to begin with?
Jesus Christ almighty, these web reviewers are so goddam egocentric.
Hopefully the dark lord Satan will save us from them all, and then C'thon
and Belial will rule the world as was meant to happen.
I suggest we let Ty Templeton set the moral and religious guidelines for
our behavior!
--
The CFV for the removal of rec.arts.comics.other-media has been posted to
news.announce.newgroups. As this vote has the potential to impact traffic
throughout the rac.* hierarchy, I urge rac.ers to vote. Vote to keep it, vote
to remove it, vote to abstain, but please express interest in this vote.
Michael Alan Chary
>In article <8riekq$nj5$0...@206.231.153.27>,
>
>> Recommended reading:
>> The Breakdown of Consciousness in the Bicameral Mind by Julian Jaynes
>
>The actual title of this book is _The Origin of Consciousness in the
>Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind_. IMO it's an excellent work.
Not as good as "Why I am Not a Christian" by Bertrand Russell.
I believe that volume includes the famous BBC debates on God between
Bertrand and Fred Copleston.
Btw, having read ADD's essay, I must say, his sophistication of thought is
every bit as extensive as I would have gathered from his Usenet postings.
We need comics about this sort of thing.
Robert M. Bienvenu
of the majority is acceptable, while criticism of the minority is
unacceptable.
While the discussion of the historical faults of Christianity is
considered as the use of the right to free speech, the same discussion
of minority groups would be considered bigotry.
Why anyone would associate themselves with a person or company that
abuses the right of free speech to single out and ridicule a religious
belief is beyond me.
I've no problem with someone writing volumes on the wrongs that have
been justified by the use of Christ's name. I don't care if they
choose to ignore the good that has been done in Christ's name. But
the use of an "X' in place of Christ is an attack on everyone that
considers themselves Christian, good or bad.
With the use of the "X", he loses all credibility, and reveals himself
as a bigot.
If I were to use a letter or symbol to replace the name Moses,
Mohammed or Buddha, because I found their followers not to my liking,
I would be labeled a bigot.
I doubt that the author of a work on the evils perpetrated by Jews,
Buddhists, Blacks, Hispanics, or Asians would be considered anything
other than a bigot.
Andrew Ducker
@news.mindspring.com>:
>I've no problem with someone writing volumes on the wrongs that have
>been justified by the use of Christ's name. I don't care if they
>choose to ignore the good that has been done in Christ's name. But
>the use of an "X' in place of Christ is an attack on everyone that
>considers themselves Christian, good or bad.
Just as a side not:
Xmas
This abbreviation for Christmas is of Greek origin. The word for Christ in
Greek is Xristos. During the 16th century, Europeans began using the first
initial of Christ's name, "X" in place of the word Christ in Christmas as a
shorthand form of the word. Although the early Christians understood that X
stood for Christ's name, later Christians who did not understand the Greek
language mistook "Xmas" as a sign of disrespect
From http://wilstar.com/xmas/xmassymb.htm
Andy D
Richard Pace
"Robert M. Bienvenu" wrote:
> I've no problem with someone writing volumes on the wrongs that have
> been justified by the use of Christ's name. I don't care if they
> choose to ignore the good that has been done in Christ's name. But
> the use of an "X' in place of Christ is an attack on everyone that
> considers themselves Christian, good or bad.
Christ is a title -- the guy you're referring to had a name: Jesus of
Nazareth.
Christ is also known as "X".
X = the unknown, amongst other things.
Malcolm X ring any bells?
X-Mas ring any silver bells? "X" is legitimate shorthand for Christ, but
it also is shorthand for the unknown.
> With the use of the "X", he loses all credibility, and reveals himself
> as a bigot.
Actually, he merely reveals himself as better read than most people who'd
label him a bigot for calling Christians Xtians and Christianity Xtianity.
I, personally prefer Xian and Xianity since Christ already ends with a
"t".
> If I were to use a letter or symbol to replace the name Moses,
> Mohammed or Buddha, because I found their followers not to my liking,
> I would be labeled a bigot.
Depends on whether the faithful had previously used that letter with
regard to Moses, Mohammed or Bhudda.
Malcolm X was a chosen Islamic name.
> I doubt that the author of a work on the evils perpetrated by Jews,
> Buddhists, Blacks, Hispanics, or Asians would be considered anything
> other than a bigot.
Christianity isn't the same thing as being black or hispanic or jewish or
asian -- it is the same thing as being Bhuddist, however.
And had a writer written a history of all the evils committed in the name
of Bhudda or rationalized as being justified within the tenets of Bhuddism
then he wouldn't be a bigot.
Richard
--
The Gallery
http://webhome.idirect.com/~rpace/
After November 1st it will be found at
http://www3.sympatico.ca/richardpace/
Adrian Brown
(Robert M. Bienvenu) writes:
>With the use of the "X", he loses all credibility, and reveals himself
>as a bigot.
Has this discussiona t last got around to comics ?
In which case shouldn't it be on rac.mu.xmen ?
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
charity comic requests contributions
http://members.aol.com/adeheathen/c2000page.htm
Rich Johnston
>On 5 Oct 2000 21:04:51 GMT, vap...@prism.gatech.edu (Jerry B. Ray,
>Jr.) wrote:
>
>>(My favorite recent PC story? An Olympic correspondent referring to
>>an athlete from, like, Zaire or somewhere, as an "African American.")
Allegedly a US TV presenter did the same for Nelson Mandela.
Pat ONeill
>Actually, he merely reveals himself as better read than most people who'd
>label him a bigot for calling Christians Xtians and Christianity Xtianity.
I'm sorry--I've never seen "xtian" or "xian" or anything of the like used by
anyone who was speaking well of Christians and Christianity. It's not unlike
those who spell America with a "k"...it's a clear sign to the informed of where
the writer's opinions lie.
Best, Pat
Justin Bacon
>I've no problem with someone writing volumes on the wrongs that have
>been justified by the use of Christ's name. I don't care if they
>choose to ignore the good that has been done in Christ's name. But
>the use of an "X' in place of Christ is an attack on everyone that
>considers themselves Christian, good or bad.
>
>With the use of the "X", he loses all credibility, and reveals himself
>as a bigot.
You moron. There are many *Christians* who use the exact same abbreviation. It
was *Christians* who invented the abbreviation.
Justin Bacon
tria...@aol.com
Robert M. Bienvenu
If you think that Doane used the "X" for any other reason than as an
insult, then you're the moron. He was able to spell out every other
word, but felt the need to super-abbreviate the word Christiian?
Come on.
His use of the abbreviation was not due to it's historical origins, or
because it's considered appropriate by some Christians. He just
wanted to piss people off.
If the periodicals that you read use the abbreviation "Xtian" or
"Xtianity", then you need to find new reading material.
Justin Bacon
(Robert M. Bienvenu) writes:
>>You moron. There are many *Christians* who use the exact same abbreviation.
It
>>was *Christians* who invented the abbreviation.
>>
>If you think that Doane used the "X" for any other reason than as an
>insult, then you're the moron.
I'm, literally, speechless. Your stupidity obviously knows no bounds.
Justin Bacon
tria...@aol.com
Paul O'Brien
<vap...@prism.gatech.edu> writes
>
>First off, I find this quite enlightening. It often seems like those
>most vehemently opposed to Christianity were brought up in it.
Only to be expected. Those who have not had contact with Christianity
are unlikely to have formed strong views on it.
Paul O'Brien
THE X-AXIS REVIEWS - http://www.esoterica.demon.co.uk
Save fuel. Kill a trucker.
Paul O'Brien
n...@yahoo.communication.breakdown> writes
>
>You should read Dr. Laura's comments on why conservatives call gays
>"homosexuals" sometime.
Um... because most people speaking in politics tend to avoid the
use of slang unless specifically making an effort to Connect With
The Electorate, I'd have thought.
Paul O'Brien
<twis...@hotmail.com> writes
>>
>>>(My favorite recent PC story? An Olympic correspondent referring to
>>>an athlete from, like, Zaire or somewhere, as an "African American.")
>
>Allegedly a US TV presenter did the same for Nelson Mandela.
This is more a sign of the US's more general difficulties in
comprehending the existence of other countries, I think.
Paul O'Brien
<richa...@sympatico.ca> writes
>
>Christ is also known as "X".
Possibly the most positive thing anybody's said about the letter X on
a comics newsgroup in several years.
Bobb Waller
wrote:
What about someone like myself whom Judaism has taught, never to claim
the Jesus was the messiah? I use the xtian so as not to make this
claim? But never to speak ill of xtians. Just something I learned from
my rabbi growing up. As I learned to use the word G-d when speaking of
the creator of all things.
Bobb
===================================================================================
I hope I am never so poor that I cannot afford to
laugh at myself.
=================================================================================
http://signature.coola.com/?bo...@fan.com
Please remove NOSPAM when replying.
Jerry B. Ray, Jr.
Ken Arromdee <arro...@rahul.net> wrote:
>>With the use of the "X", he loses all credibility, and reveals himself
>>as a bigot.
>You reveal yourselves as poorly educated. The X for "Christ" was invented by
>Christians and used by Christians.
My take on this: I realize the historical precedence behind substituting
"X" for "Christ." I also realize that a lot of Christians are somewhat
knee-jerky about the issue due to a lack of that historical knowledge.
That said, I'm pretty firmly entrenched in the Christian subculture.
I've grown up in church most of my life, and spent a lot of time
around all varieties of Christians. (FWIW, as I've gotten older,
I've tried my best to move beyond the anti-intellectualism and
emotion-based Christianity that's most common in the U.S., into
a deeper realm of faith and doctrine and so-forth.) Anyway, I
digress... My point is that none of the Christians I know,
even the ones that understand the historical significance of
the "X," ever use it as an abbreviation. The only time I see
it used is in writings from people like Alan, or like Jason Steiner
and Brian Trosko, the resident militant atheists over in
rec.music.christian, or folks like "Sven, Goat of Hate" that
crosspost "I rape the skull of Christ" stuff from the death metal
groups.
So in a sense, people on both sides of this discussion about the "X"
are correct, from my perspective. Yes, there's a historical precedence
to the use of "X" as an abbreviation for Christ that many Christians
are ignorant of. But yes, "X" is also frequently used as an insult
or a snide, loaded reference not unlike "Amerika," as somebody else
mentioned.
JRjr
--
%%%%% Jerry B. Ray, Jr. %%%%%%%% www.prism.gatech.edu/~vapspwi %%%%%%%%%%%
"Some will shake off the sloth of faithlessness
While others simply languish in their sleep
Me, I just fight to stay awake..." -- VOL, "Black Cloud O'er Me"
Jerry B. Ray, Jr.
Paul O'Brien <pa...@esoterica.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>This is more a sign of the US's more general difficulties in
>comprehending the existence of other countries, I think.
And Australians all have pet koalas and throw boomerangs, and the
Scottish people and all those other English sit around sipping tea
all day. S'all stereotypes. Nuff said-I don't think we need
to add Geography Wars part LXXVII to the ongoing religion and
homosexuality threads. :-)
Anyway, I took the gaffe (referring to an actual African as
an "African American") more as a sign of how tied-into-knots
people here have gotten WRT "political correctness" than as
a sign that people from the US don't understand that there's an
Africa.
Michael Alan Chary
><twis...@hotmail.com> writes
>>>
>>>>(My favorite recent PC story? An Olympic correspondent referring to
>>>>an athlete from, like, Zaire or somewhere, as an "African American.")
>>
>>Allegedly a US TV presenter did the same for Nelson Mandela.
>
>comprehending the existence of other countries, I think.
At least we never tried taking them all over or getting them hookd on
opium.
Kevin J. Maroney
>Malcolm X was a chosen Islamic name.
No, "El-hajj Malik El-Shabazz" was his chosen Islamic name. Malcolm
Little took the name "Malcom X" to show his repudiation of his slave
name ("Little"), but it was not an "Islamic" name.
--
Kevin J. Maroney | Unplugged Games | kmar...@ungames.com
"Love doesn't have a point. Love *is* the point."--Alan Moore
Richard Pace
"Kevin J. Maroney" wrote:
> Richard Pace <richa...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> >Malcolm X was a chosen Islamic name.
>
> No, "El-hajj Malik El-Shabazz" was his chosen Islamic name. Malcolm
> Little took the name "Malcom X" to show his repudiation of his slave
> name ("Little"), but it was not an "Islamic" name.
Yup -- weirdly enough I had just seen Spike's biopic recently and still
made that mistake -- go figger!
mrcr...@my-deja.com
I posted your message to newsgroups that I thought were more suitable
for this thread (which has taken on a theological tone). The thread
seems to have outgrown the comic spectrum.
Take Care,
mrcreeper
In article <8riekq$nj5$0...@206.231.153.27>,
alandav...@yahoo.communication.breakdown (Alan David Doane) wrote:
> Xtianity, Bigotry and Johanna Draper Carlson
>
> In a sarcastic post on the Comic Book Galaxy message board, in a
> response to a post that mentioned some consider Preacher
> anti-Christian, I gave the dictionary definition of a bigot, and said
> in regard to xtianity, "Damn, guilty as charged." This resulted in a
> scorched-earth demand from Johanna Draper Carlson that I apologize to
> her and either stifle my opinions in perpetuity, or she would leave
> the site. I apologized for offending her personally, and told her that
> I have always respected her and regretted if my remarks and opinions
> hurt her personally. But I did not, and never would, agree to restrain
> my opinions or co-opt my freedom of speech. Especially not on a web
> site I created.
>
> She now refers to me as a bigot, which has really prompted me to
> examine the question of what is a bigot?
>
> Kurt Busiek made a good distinction between discriminating against
> someone for what they are born as -- gay, black -- as opposed to what
> a grown adult has chosen to believe.
>
> Am I bigoted against xtians? It would be more accurate, if I were
> trying to remove all humour and sarcasm from the discussion, to say I
> am bigoted against xtianity in general. As a philosophy. As a way of
> controlling people and their money. As a manner of destroying the
> individuality and spirit of people and crushing their passions and
> intellectual capacity.
>
> Sure, there have been individual xtians I have been friends with; one,
> right now, is one of my best friends, a radio news director named Joe.
> He's a catholic. Catholics consider themselves xtians, or as they
> prefer to spell it, "Christians."
>
> Growing up in the deep south, as a student of Berean Christian Academy
> and a member of the Berean Baptist Church, one of the things I was
> taught, from a variety of pastors, was that catholics are all going to
> hell. We were taught to pity them, because they were idol-worshipping
> pagans. Southern Baptists see catholic standards like statues of Mary
> and such as idolatry. Bible verses were taught to us to back up this
> opinion. We were taught that the catholic bible, containing the
> apocrypha, is evil.
>
> This is quite typical of the fear-and-hate (or as they abbreviate it,
> "faith")-based philosophies of most of the xtians I have known
> personally. On my personal web site, The Ministry of Disinformation
> and Popular Enlightenment, in the True Stories section there is a
> story called Radio Antichrist. It's about a former boss of mine who
> tortured those under him mentally and physically, had numerous sexual
> affairs while married, resulting in at least one illegitimate child,
> stole thousands of dollars in merchandise from the radio station by
> selling commercials to clients and taking cars and furniture in trade,
> playing the commercials on his show, and never telling the station
> about ANY of it--and was perhaps the most pious, bible-thumping man I
> have had the displeasure to known personally in the past 20 years. He
> has also been suspected by family members of molesting his young
> step-son, and he tried to molest co-workers both male and female. He
> ends every radio show with "God Bless."
>
> As Dave Barry might say, "I swear I am not making this up."
>
> The very principles of "faith" state that you should not question
> authority--whether it is your pastor, diocese, or the ultimate "higher
> authority," Jesus H. Christ or his Holy Father, the endlessly
> compassionate G-O-D, who created H-E-L-L so YOU can BURN for ALL TIME
> if you don't capitulate to his endlessly amorphous demands as spelled
> out in The Bible. Whichever Bible you happen to have placed your faith
> in, of course.
>
> My feelings on faith are spelled out pretty clearly in an essay called
> "The Rush to Mysticism." It's in the essays section of Elution web
> site. The essay was written over a year ago, and has recently been
> called "a fairly thoughtful essay," by Kurt Busiek. So for the
> endlessly self-righteous and CB Galaxy-obsessed "griffinmill," a guy
> named Jason, to imply in his message board post "Does Tom Brevoort
> Know About Your Opinions?", that I have somehow been trying to pull
> the wool over anyone's eyes is more than a bit disingenuous. I have
> been more than willing to engage in a dialogue about xtianity and
> faith online since I first got Internet access five or six years ago,
> and have done so numerous times. There's no way anyone can claim my
> opinions have somehow been hidden or obscured.
>
> I despise mysticism. I despise oppression. Religion, organized
> religion, is all about those two activities. I hold freedom to be the
> highest good, and the greatest of humanity's aspirations and
> achievements. Organized religion is diametrically opposed to freedom,
> except the free ride they get because they've hoodwinked the
> government into allowing them to operate tax-free.
>
> This does not mean I am against spirituality, or that I don't believe
> there might be more to the universe that it would at first appear. I
> happen to believe that genuine religious epiphanies and paranormal
> phenomena such as so-called alien abduction and visitor experiences,
> are all reflections of the same experience; humanity somehow touching
> the next level of our development as a conscious species. I can
> recommend some books on this topic if you're interested; e-mail me if
> you are.
>
> Organized religion, on the other hand, has for thousands of years,
> especially in the Western Hemisphere, been used by opportunistic
> vultures to line their own coffers ("tithing") and secure sexual
> partners through the use of predatory sexual practices (Jim Bakker,
> for example, or Jimmy Swaggert, or the catholic priest of your
> choice). Organized religion certainly backs up the theory that most
> people, most of the time, are worried about either survival (cash) or
> reproduction (sex), whether they realize it or not.
>
> The fraud and oppression of organized religion, especially "The
> World's Tragedy," xtianity, is well and thoroughly documented. The
> evidence is there for all to see, at least, all who are willing and
> capable of seeing. Jesus Christ never lived; he was an amalgamation of
> previous pagan gods--the stories, the myths, no matter how they
> resonate with us subconsciously, remain myths. A powerful myth is
> still a myth. A powerful lie is still a lie, no matter how pervasive,
> or how badly people might want to believe it.
>
> So, am I a bigot?
>
> I don't hate anyone, anywhere, for what they were born as. Do I hate
> xtianity? Yes. I hate other forms of ignorance as well (don't even get
> me started on the brutal, primitive, lucrative practice of doctors
> forcing circumcision on gullible parents all too willing to mutilate
> their sons; or daughters, if we talk about some parts of Africa), but
> xtianity was the one we were talking about on the message board, and
> it's the one I chose to discuss here.
>
> Do I hate individual xtians?
>
> Only the ones that give me a reason to. Does that include Johanna
> Draper Carlson? Of course not.
>
> I am extremely disappointed she chose to bolt from the site after only
> the most superficial discussion of what could have been a very
> interesting and enlightening debate. She clearly will not tolerate the
> diversity of opinion that is the goal of the Comic Book Galaxy. But it
> should be noted, I never censored her, or anyone else. I will tolerate
> just about any opinion on the site or on the message board, even
> though ultimately I have the power not to. I'm open-minded enough to
> believe that there is value in discussing differences of opinion. That
> a self-professed "Christian" would not be willing to do the same comes
> as no real surprise, and only reinforces my overall impression of the
> xtians I have personally know as small-minded, fearful, doubtful
> little creatures living in a very fragile world where the first sign
> of a cloud on the horizon results in plywood on the windows and weeks
> in the basement to ride out the shitstorm.
>
> Recommended reading:
>
> The Christ Conspiracy by Acharya S
> The Breakdown of Consciousness in the Bicameral Mind by Julian Jaynes
> The World's Tragedy by Aleister Crowley
> Man and His Gods by Homer Smith
>
> Alan David Doane
> Editor-in-Chief
> Comic Book Galaxy
>
> http://www.comicbookgalaxy.com
Robert M. Bienvenu
place of Christ, I decided to do a small test.
Yahoo's results for "xtianity" came up with over 500 listings. I
checked the first 20 and found that the only two pages that were by
Christians were for an "Adult Christian" website (their position being
that of a hyper-sexual Christianity), and the discussion of the role
of Christianity in the South African parliament. In the latter site,
I couldn't find the abbreviation used.
The rest of the sites were either critical of Christianity, or
discussed it from a non-Christian point of view. Most of these only
using the "Xtian" abbreviation in their html address. In the actual
text, all but one site spelled out "Christian" as used in their text.
This is the smallest of samplings, and not scientific by any means.
But it does show, at least to myself, that the abbreviated version of
Christ is used more by non-Christians.
Michael Alan Chary
When the waiter comes with the koala's bill.
The koala pulls out a revolver and shoots him.
As the koala is walking through the door, the bartender shouts, "Hey,
come back here. You can't do that."
The koala turns, and sneering, says, "I'm a koala. Look it up."
So, the bartender gets a dictionary and looks up "koala," and it says
"Marsupial native to Australia. Eats shoots and leaves."
Graeme
news:8rr6aq$r8t$1...@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu...
> So, a koala walks into a bar and orders a sandwich.
The version I originally heard 15 years ago featured a wombat, but as the
punchline didn't really work well outside of Australia I can see why the
koala was brought in and the joke changed slightly.
Graeme
Justin Bacon
>>Allegedly a US TV presenter did the same for Nelson Mandela.
>
>This is more a sign of the US's more general difficulties in
>comprehending the existence of other countries, I think.
I suspect it has more to do with the fact that the term "African American" is
even more ridiculous a term than "Native American". What the hell does it
*mean*? Nothing. So ultimately it is predestined to get applied incorrectly.
Justin Bacon
tria...@aol.com
David Welsh
mch...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Michael Alan Chary) wrote:
> I suggest we let Ty Templeton set the moral and religious guidelines
for
> our behavior!
OH no you don't! Ty would lead us directly to Stig's Inferno! :D
David Welsh
--
"The writer of this article is the owner of one of the most remarkable
black cats in the world-- and this is saying much; for it will be
remembered that black cats are all of them witches."
Edgar Allan Poe
Peter Bruells
> I suspect it has more to do with the fact that the term "African
> American" is even more ridiculous a term than "Native
> American". What the hell does it *mean*? Nothing. So ultimately it
> is predestined to get applied incorrectly.
LOL
'cuse me while a drop an anectdoe. Back in 1996 I went to shop for
boots in, uh, some City in Colorado and got accompanied by an American
friend because I wasn't familiar with special vocabulary I might have
needed.
The saleswoman noticed my accent and asked where I was from. I
answered correctly (Germany). Then it someone like this:
"So when did you guys arrive?" (nodding to said American friendd,
about 180 cm high, quite pale,
quite blond)
Enter the innocent abroad.
"No, just me. He's a native"
Funny, how startled some people can look.
Peter Bruells
Don't leave us hanging? Why doesn't it work with a Wombat? To unknown
an animal?
Paul "Duggy" Duggan
> Don't leave us hanging? Why doesn't it work with a Wombat? To unknown
> an animal?
It's more that here in Australia we uses "roots" as one of the many
words for sex.
It's a told joke, rather then a written joke, and goes:
"He's like a Wombat - he eats roots, shoots and leaves."
---
- Dug.
---
Not for human consumption.
To be read by Pets only.
---
Bala Menon
news:8rrsod$ert$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <8rnfdo$cer$1...@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu>,
> mch...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Michael Alan Chary) wrote:
> > I suggest we let Ty Templeton set the moral and religious guidelines
> > for our behavior!
>
> OH no you don't! Ty would lead us directly to Stig's Inferno! :D
And this would be a bad thing how ? :-)
More Stig ! More Stig !
--
Bala Menon (b.m...@worldnet.att.net)
Michael Alan Chary
What's the wombat version?
(Less on-topic than religion, but more entertaining.)
Clay Peterson
> In article <8rov8d$dkn$1...@samba.rahul.net>,
> Ken Arromdee <arro...@rahul.net> wrote:
>
> >You reveal yourselves as poorly educated. The X for "Christ" was invented by
> >Christians and used by Christians.
>
> My take on this: I realize the historical precedence behind substituting
> "X" for "Christ." I also realize that a lot of Christians are somewhat
> knee-jerky about the issue due to a lack of that historical knowledge.
>
> digress... My point is that none of the Christians I know,
> even the ones that understand the historical significance of
> the "X," ever use it as an abbreviation. The only time I see
Gosh, I'm coming to this discussion late.
I've yet to make my way through this entire thread, and I normally don't
comment on threads like this, but...
I am a Christian. I attend a Christian seminary. Currently, studying
Christian doctrine and developing my own faith are almost my entire life.
I certainly do *not* subscribe to the anti-intellectual faith that you
mentioned, that much of American Christianity (and conservatives in
general) seem to gravitate towards.
I use the X; I use Xians; I use Xity. Now, granted, most of the time I
use these are when I take notes in class, a form of shorthand, if you
will. However, I could also see myself using them if I were typing
hurriedly (like on usenet, for instance).
Now I didn't see the original post. I don't know how it was used, or the
context. So I'm not commenting on that. I'm just saying that some
Christians do use X, for whatever reason.
Clay
"Everything you need to know about this election, you learned from driving
a car. If you want to go backwards, put it in 'R'. If you want to go
forward, put it in 'D'."
-- Mary Louise McBee, Georgia State Representative
Paul O'Brien
<tria...@aol.com> writes
>
>I suspect it has more to do with the fact that the term "African American" is
>even more ridiculous a term than "Native American". What the hell does it
>*mean*?
Much the same as "Irish American", I suppose. I'd be interested to
know quite what the real Africans make of the term. Much the same
as the real Irish do, I suspect.
Paul O'Brien
<bien...@mindspring.com> writes
>
>Yahoo's results for "xtianity" came up with over 500 listings. I
>checked the first 20 and found that the only two pages that were by
>Christians were for an "Adult Christian" website (their position being
>that of a hyper-sexual Christianity), and the discussion of the role
>of Christianity in the South African parliament.
...
Sorry, what was the URL of that first one again?
John Savard
alandav...@yahoo.communication.breakdown (Alan David Doane) wrote,
in part:
>Kurt Busiek made a good distinction between discriminating against
>someone for what they are born as -- gay, black -- as opposed to what
>a grown adult has chosen to believe.
People don't choose to believe things.
They arrive at conclusions through observation and reasoning.
When they see that something is true, they cannot decide they will not
believe it anyways, although some people with extremely faulty
reasoning abilities might indeed pretend to do so, or engage in
wishful thinking.
I could not cause myself to believe that Christianity is true in the
simple, literal sense. Neither, however, could I choose not to believe
that there is a real distinction between right and wrong, or that
human beings are more important than any kind of automaton.
Those who have been raised from childhood in the tenets of a
particular religion are often unable to question it: and, as their
religious belief may well be the underpinning of their entire concept
of ethical behavior, it is not clear that it would be beneficial in
all cases if they did.
It should also be noted that people are indeed born with one color of
skin or another. Some people once did believe that black people were
different from white people - just as horses were different from
people. There are very few people around nowadays who think so.
Neither are there people who hate black people because the color of
their skin clashes with the drapes.
Instead, most people who are prejudiced against black people are this
way because they have certain expectations of their behavior:
expectations that are unfair, not only to middle-class blacks, but
even to most of those who are still poor - but not entirely
unreasonable. There are parts of Los Angeles and New York which are
not safe for many honest citizens.
As far as being "gay" is concerned, though, everyone is responsible
for every sexual act they _choose_ to engage in.
Why is it anyone's business what consenting adults do in private?
Well, why is it anyone's business what someone's religious beliefs
are?
Religious freedom cuts very close to the core of freedom itself,
because the fundamental beliefs of an individual, about right and
wrong, about the purpose of life, often involve that individual's
religious beliefs.
If you want to express contempt for some people because their
religious beliefs have caused them to show disrespect for the rights
of others, fine.
But you should then be very careful to avoid being misunderstood.
Just as someone has to when expressing anger - justifiably - at people
like the rioters who dragged an innocent man from a truck and left him
brain-damaged on the occasion of the acquital in the Rodney King case.
Or as someone must when denouncing the actions of the group ACT UP, in
invading churches and committing desecrations there.
John Savard
http://home.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/crypto.htm
Graeme
news:8rrrh0$q...@news.Informatik.Uni-Oldenburg.DE...
> an animal?
No, it depended on Australian slang (root = have sex). The original version
I saw was a three-panel strip on a t-shirt, with a dictionary definition
beneath.
"Wombat, n. Australian marsupial. Eats, roots and leaves."
Panel 1: Male wombat sitting at a dinner table with female wombat.
Panel 2: Male wombat and female wombat getting to know each other.
Panel 3: Male wombat grabbing its hat and coat as it bolts out the door.
Graeme
Ty Templeton
Rimbaud35 wrote:
> As long as there is no bean dip. I hate bean dip, it sticks to the
> roof of my mouth.
The memories on you people. You have to get out more...
Ty the Guy. Wasting away in Augusta Pa with blemishes, boils and such.
a damontury ends
John Savard wrote:
>
> On 5 Oct 2000 17:43:54 GMT,
> alandav...@yahoo.communication.breakdown (Alan David Doane) wrote,
> in part:
>
> >Kurt Busiek made a good distinction between discriminating against
> >someone for what they are born as -- gay, black -- as opposed to what
> >a grown adult has chosen to believe.
>
> People don't choose to believe things.
yes, yes they do.
all the time.
> They arrive at conclusions through observation and reasoning.
>
> When they see that something is true, they cannot decide they will not
> believe it anyways, although some people with extremely faulty
> reasoning abilities might indeed pretend to do so, or engage in
> wishful thinking.
see?
> Those who have been raised from childhood in the tenets of a
> particular religion are often unable to question it: and, as their
> religious belief may well be the underpinning of their entire concept
> of ethical behavior, it is not clear that it would be beneficial in
> all cases if they did.
i was.
idid.
it was beneficial.
tho not to cats.
--
"I believe the role of the military is to fight and win war and
therefore prevent war from happening in the first place. And so I
take my responsibility seriously." George W. Bush, demonstrating a
keen grasp of time.
Elayne Riggs
> I'm sorry--I've never seen "xtian" or "xian" or anything of the like used by
> anyone who was speaking well of Christians and Christianity.
I have. Until these threads I thought it was a fairly common abbreviation
and didn't ascribe any malice of forethought to it. Maybe it's because in
Judaism you're not supposed to say or write the True Name of God and all
that, and I always assumed using the "x" instead of "Christ" was kind of a
respect for what Christians believe is a True Aspect of God.
- Elayne
Charles LePage
Anytime I've seen the word "xtian" used, it was used either out of disrespect to
God/Jesus, or it was used by people who don't believe Jesus ever existed
historically.
*Charles S. LePage www.comiclist.com*
* NCRL: New Comic Book Releases List *
Rob Jensen -- ShutUpRobEBoy
>In article <8ro3i...@drn.newsguy.com>, Rich Johnston
><twis...@hotmail.com> writes
>>>
>>>>(My favorite recent PC story? An Olympic correspondent referring to
>>>>an athlete from, like, Zaire or somewhere, as an "African American.")
>>
>>Allegedly a US TV presenter did the same for Nelson Mandela.
>
>This is more a sign of the US's more general difficulties in
>comprehending the existence of other countries, I think.
Naaah. This is journalists deciding to turn off their brains
in public.
-- Rob Jensen
===================================================
"Who? Richard Hatch? You mean Apollo from 'Battlestar Galactica'
won 'Survivor'? Just where in the heck was Sheba, anyway?"
k...@removethesetsoft.net
> In article <20001008234439...@nso-bd.aol.com>, Justin Bacon
> <tria...@aol.com> writes
>>
>>even more ridiculous a term than "Native American". What the hell does it
>>*mean*?
> Much the same as "Irish American", I suppose. I'd be interested to
> know quite what the real Africans make of the term. Much the same
> as the real Irish do, I suspect.
I'm not sure it's quite the same; otherwise, I'd be both an Irish-American
and a German-American.
I rarely hear white people described by their ancestors' country of
origin; usually, an "Irish-American" is someone who was born in Ireland
and emigrated here. Unless it's a national pride day like St. Patrick's.
With white folks, the tacked-on country name is more about cultural
identity, while with non-whites, it's more about ethnicity.
And yes, it's all quite silly.
ObComics: Has anyone ever used a term like "Skrull-American" or
"Kree-American" in a comic? Peter David, I am looking at YOU. :)
--
KarlHiller [] Systems Librarian
"Now the authorities have cracked down on pitbulls and the rest, apes
look like becoming the new weapon of choice," said [Officer] Lecourbe.
- the Paris Guardian
Robert Carnegie
Chary <mch...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> writes
>In article <nAtxdTAQ...@esoterica.demon.co.uk>,
>Paul O'Brien <pa...@esoterica.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>In article <8ro3i...@drn.newsguy.com>, Rich Johnston
>><twis...@hotmail.com> writes
>>>>
>>>>>(My favorite recent PC story? An Olympic correspondent referring to
>>>>>an athlete from, like, Zaire or somewhere, as an "African American.")
>>>
>>>Allegedly a US TV presenter did the same for Nelson Mandela.
>>
>>This is more a sign of the US's more general difficulties in
>>comprehending the existence of other countries, I think.
>
>opium.
Hey, at least we showed an interest.
I do recall how we British invaded North America, though. But
wait, wasn't that you, really?
IMO the entire human race is guilty anyway for wiping out
Neanderthal Man. I understand that Native Americans are legally
allowed to claim Neanderthal remains as their ancestors', but I
don't believe it's actually true of any of us. At a time when we used
to eat our own species, would we marry out?
Robert Carnegie at home, rja.ca...@mailexcite.com at large
--
"In a final bid to raise money for the town's hospital, The Messiah
will come to Brecon Cathedral next Saturday." (Brecon & Radnor Express)
Robert Carnegie
<mo...@usa.net> writes
>In article <8riekq$nj5$0...@206.231.153.27>,
> alandav...@yahoo.communication.breakdown (Alan David Doane)
>wrote:
>
>> The Breakdown of Consciousness in the Bicameral Mind by Julian
>Jaynes
>
>Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind_. IMO it's an excellent work.
_The Breakdown Of Consciousness..._ sounds more like
something by, oh what is that guy's name, is it Julian Barnes?
Carl Henderson
>IMO the entire human race is guilty anyway for wiping out
>Neanderthal Man. I understand that Native Americans are legally
>allowed to claim Neanderthal remains as their ancestors', but I
>don't believe it's actually true of any of us.
It may be. Theories differ whether modern humans wiped out the Neanderthal's
via intermarriage, or by the more traditional genocide--or whether they just
died out without much help from us. As it stands now, we really don't know for
sure.
One thing that we do know for sure, is that Native Americans are not claiming
any Neanderthal remains. Only Homo sapiens remains have ever been found in the
Americas.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl Henderson rec.arts.comics/rec.arts.comics.misc FAQ
carl.he...@airmail.net http://www.enteract.com/~katew/faqs/miscfaq.htm
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
A 2nd CFV (Call For Votes) on the removal of rec.arts.comics.other-media has
been posted to news.announce.newgroups. Voting ends at 23:59:59 UTC, 16 Oct
2000. Vote to keep RAC.other-media, vote to remove it, or vote to abstain,
but please vote.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ciaran McNulty
Jerry B. Ray, Jr. <vap...@prism.gatech.edu> wrote:
> and the
> Scottish people and all those other English sit around sipping tea
> all day.
*looks at cup in hand*
Hmm...
You might have somethign there...
-Ciaran (English tea-drinker)
Peter Bruells
> In article <RUH$5WAuxP...@redjac.demon.co.uk>, Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@mailexcite.com> wrote:
>> IMO the entire human race is guilty anyway for wiping out
>> Neanderthal Man. I understand that Native Americans are legally
>> allowed to claim Neanderthal remains as their ancestors', but I
>> don't believe it's actually true of any of us.
>> us. As it stands now, we really don't know for sure.
[...]
> One thing that we do know for sure, is that Native Americans are not
> claiming any Neanderthal remains. Only Homo sapiens remains have
> ever been found in the Americas.
Sure. But there have been *quite* a few findings and digs that
indicate the people who later became Indians were not the first on the
American continents.