Atheists: America's most distrusted minority
krueg...@hotmail.com
study by the University of Minnesota seems to indicate that above and
beyond all other distrusted minority groups, people in America distrust
atheists the most.
It might surprise you, but I find where I live to be remarkably
intolerant of Atheists, so I'm not really surprised to hear this. I
was a bit surprised with the recent upsurge in the hatred and distrust
of Muslims that Atheists even beat them out. :o
Rob Perkins
> It might surprise you, but I find where I live to be remarkably
> intolerant of Atheists, so I'm not really surprised to hear this. I
> was a bit surprised with the recent upsurge in the hatred and distrust
> of Muslims that Atheists even beat them out. :o
I find where I live is just the opposite. Atheists around me are
remarkably tolerant, and everyone else is tolerant of them. Perhaps this
is one reason why I like my home so much.
What people distrust, I think, are the O'Hair-style atheists who try to
sue their way into getting what they want. The fact that they prevail
where they do without an act of Congress is disturbing on several levels
to those people.
But, honestly, I harbor just as much distrust for *religionists* who
attempt to use the courts to bludgeon people about.
And, the "allow their children to marry" thing is kind of laughable. Our
society places almost no worth on the authority of parents to prevent
it, once majority is reached.
Rob
Jon Schild
Atheists I have met seem to come in only two varieties, with no
in-between. One says to himself "These god people are really stupid,
but it's no skin off my nose, so let them believe what they want and
leave them to their fantasies." They don't want anything to do with
religion, but don't care if I am involved in it. Very few people are
offended or intolerant of them. I certainly have no problem with them.
The other variety has to jump down your throat everytime you so much as
mention going to church, with an extremely insulting and frequently
profane lecture on your stupidity, childishness, inability to comprehend
reality, etc. These are the ones who profess that their rights have
been violated if they walk down a public sidewalk and hear hymn singing
coming from a nearby church. They don't believe in freedom of thought
or speech, except for those who agree with them. They are very
offensive. Fortunately, I haven't met many of these. I think (hope)
they are the minority of atheists.
ravend03x
...snip...
> But, honestly, I harbor just as much distrust for *religionists* who
> attempt to use the courts to bludgeon people about.
I agree... MOST "extremists" of any kind are prone to sociopathic
tendencies or fall back on rude behavior to drive home their
opinions...
I know this wonderful gentleman who is ultra-conservative and very
religious but makes me qualify the previous statement by being the
nicest guy I have ever met. You can have a pleasant debate with him
and express an opposing point of view without either party getting hot
under the collar.
Very refreshing to find someone who retained all his kindergarten
lessons!
David Williams
"Jon Schild" <j...@aros.net> wrote in message
news:g8udnZmfbNCgfrDZ...@aros.net...
> Atheists I have met seem to come in only two varieties, with no
> in-between. One says to himself "These god people are really stupid, but
> it's no skin off my nose, so let them believe what they want and leave
> them to their fantasies."
This is not a "type" of "atheist."
This is a type of elitist snob, which comes in all colors, INCLUDING
Christian.
> Very few people are offended or intolerant of them.
Not true, as the study shows. Trust me on this... if you can.
> The other variety has to jump down your throat everytime you so much as
> mention going to church, with an extremely insulting and frequently
> profane lecture on your stupidity, childishness, inability to comprehend
> reality, etc.
Sounds like you meet some really charming people.
Again, this isn't a "type of atheist."
This is a type of A-Hole. Don't confuse the two. Just because a few rude,
inconsiderate people happen to belong to a group, you think they are
representative of a whole "type?"
> These are the ones who profess that their rights have been violated if
> they walk down a public sidewalk and hear hymn singing coming from a
> nearby church. They don't believe in freedom of thought or speech, except
> for those who agree with them.
Wonderful generalization, and wrong on all counts.
I haven't met many of these. I think (hope)
> they are the minority of atheists.
In my experience, this type of PERSON, regardless of their views on
religion, politics, whatever... this type of PERSON is in the minority.
You began by classifying atheists into 2 types - snobbish elitists who
disparage your views privately, but otherwise leave you alone, and ranting
lunatics who use profanity in front of your children to beat down your
views.
The truth is that MOST atheists you've "met" are people YOU don't even know
are atheists - because most atheists know enough to keep their mouths shut
about their views. From personal experience they've learned that, in any
given religious discussion, most people will at least feign respect if you
profess to be of a different religion than theirs. But tell someone you're
an atheist, and, if you'll excuse the expression, all hell breaks loose.
Most atheists, living in this country at least, know that a peaceful, good
quality life can best be enjoyed by keeping it to themselves, and going
peacefully about their own business.
Case in point, myself. I have always been an atheist, even since I was too
young to really know what it meant. I was about 16 or 17 when I fully
realized it.
BUT...
The entire rest of my family are confirmed Presbyterians.
I celbrate Christmas and attend Christmas services with them, and even sing
along with the hymns.
I always go to weddings, funerals, and the occasional baptism in churches.
My wife (a christian) and I were married in a religious cermenony by a
Lutheran minister.
For the second year in a row, we have been invited to, and will attend a
Seder.
I could go on, and on, and on.........
And I never say a word.
My wife knows, of course. We've discussed it.
And she doesn't say a word either.
Tell me, which "type" do I belong to?
I would dare say, a majority. Albeit, a majority of a minority.
David Williams
Carl Dershem
> Atheists I have met seem to come in only two varieties, with no
> in-between. One says to himself "These god people are really stupid,
> but it's no skin off my nose, so let them believe what they want and
> leave them to their fantasies." They don't want anything to do with
> religion, but don't care if I am involved in it. Very few people are
> offended or intolerant of them. I certainly have no problem with
> them.
>
> The other variety has to jump down your throat everytime you so much
> as mention going to church, with an extremely insulting and frequently
> profane lecture on your stupidity, childishness, inability to
> comprehend reality, etc. These are the ones who profess that their
> rights have been violated if they walk down a public sidewalk and hear
> hymn singing coming from a nearby church. They don't believe in
> freedom of thought or speech, except for those who agree with them.
> They are very offensive. Fortunately, I haven't met many of these. I
> think (hope) they are the minority of atheists.
I could say the same of religious people, and often have. But that doesn't
make atheism a religion, as so many (of the latter sort of) religious
people claim.
It's like anything else with people - there are those who MUST have
everyone fit their mold, and those who let people be what they are. The
former are definitly the more dangerous.
cd
--
The difference between immorality and immortality is "T". I like Earl
Grey.
Matt Ion
Actually, I think the former is more in-between... the "kinder, gentler"
extreme would be more your JMS type, who don't (at least appear to)
consider "god people" to be "stupid", but respect their views even
though they may differ from their own.
---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 0613-2, 03/31/2006
Tested on: 4/1/2006 10:39:43 AM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com
Mox Fulder
"The researchers also found acceptance or rejection of atheists is related
not only to personal religiosity, but also to one?s exposure to diversity,
education and political orientation?with more educated, East and West
Coast Americans more accepting of atheists than their Midwestern
counterparts."
What a surprise. Not.
Ignorance and intolerance are intimate friends. I can't say this is
surprising, but it is worrisome. We have the technology to educate
ourselves more and better than ever, but as a society, we seem to be more
stupid and ignorant every day.
--
20060401 1720
This .sig is not available at the moment. Leave your message after the beep.
Matt Ion
> I could say the same of religious people, and often have. But that doesn't
> make atheism a religion, as so many (of the latter sort of) religious
> people claim.
Doesn't mean 'atheism' ISN'T a religeon for some people either.
Likewise one can be 'spiritual' or have a 'faith system' without
necessarily being 'religeous'.
> It's like anything else with people - there are those who MUST have
> everyone fit their mold, and those who let people be what they are. The
> former are definitly the more dangerous.
That's pretty much what it comes down to.
---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 0613-2, 03/31/2006
Tested on: 4/2/2006 11:27:55 AM
Vorlonagent
Vorlonagent
"Carl Dershem" <der...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:Xns97987964E77...@70.169.32.36...
> I could say the same of religious people, and often have. But that
> doesn't
> make atheism a religion, as so many (of the latter sort of) religious
> people claim.
It's a religious avocation to be sure. Athiesm is treated a religion for
legal purposes.
> It's like anything else with people - there are those who MUST have
> everyone fit their mold, and those who let people be what they are. The
> former are definitly the more dangerous.
...whatever creed they are dedicated to following or refuting.
--
John Trauger,
Vorlonagent
"Methane martini.
Shaken, not stirred."
"Spirituality without science has no mind.
Science without spirituality has no heart."
-Methuselah Jones
Techno Magus
>> http://www.ur.umn.edu/FMPro?-db=releases&-lay=web&-format=umnnewsreleases/releasesdetail.html&ID=2816&-Find
> Ignorance and intolerance are intimate friends. I can't say this is
> surprising, but it is worrisome. We have the technology to educate
> ourselves more and better than ever, but as a society, we seem to be more
> stupid and ignorant every day.
While I concur with the close relationship between ignorance and
intolerance, I do not agree on the notion of increased societal
stupidity and ignorance. I do think this generation is more open to
varieties in religion, beliefs and though than the previous one, and I
also think the previous generations were more tolerant than the one
before. Although we have historical "setbacks" (the inquisition, World
Wars etc.) the general trend is, in my mind, still towards more liberty
of though.
It becomes increasingly more difficult to control information, although
we still have institutional monopolistic aspirations in the form of mass
media, professionalism, educational predetermination...etc. It appears
to be temporary and loosening its grip eventually. Increased
informational entropy makes it more difficult to categorize information
into stereotypical though-patterns.
The Internet might prove itself valuable for future deliberation and
liberation. Or perhaps I'm just optimistic?
Jon Schild
Obviously, they do represent a type. Yes. Even if they are only 5% of
all atheists, they do. Or, if you don't comprehend the word type, try
subgroup. And I am not an idiot, I know that there are jackasses in
every system of belief or non-belief. But since thie thread started out
on ATHEISTS, not everyone in the world in general, I stuck to the thread
with my reply. As for what type of person you are, I can't really say
since I haven't met you. From this post, I would say that you are one
who takes offense very readily, and who doesn't think before he speaks.
Rob Perkins
> Carl Dershem wrote:
>
>> I could say the same of religious people, and often have. But that
>> doesn't make atheism a religion, as so many (of the latter sort of)
>> religious people claim.
>
>
> Doesn't mean 'atheism' ISN'T a religeon for some people either.
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's
a duck.
If "religion" is the duck, then "atheism" looks and walks a lot like
many variants of it, even if it doesn't quack "God", it still quacks "no
God", which to my mind is rather duck-billed...
I could get into discussion the philosophy of philosophy
(meta-philosophy?) but I like my metaphor a little too much today to
sully it with exposition. :-D
Rob, who prefers to follow people who have seen this duck
Wesley Struebing
<kos...@comcast.net> wrote:
<snip>
>I could go on, and on, and on.........
>And I never say a word.
>My wife knows, of course. We've discussed it.
>And she doesn't say a word either.
Yup. No need to. Now, I'm Pagan (not atheist, but...), but am very
comfortable in the Lutheran setting (having grown up in it and married
in it, etc.) Doesn't hurt me to enjoy the family feeling of attending
when we go back to see my mom, and it does Mom good that we still
attend with her. One takes out of it what one can, even if it is an
intellectual exercise.
But, like you have attended (a) Seder. I also dated a "nice, Jewish
girl" when I was in high school, etc., etc.
>
>Tell me, which "type" do I belong to?
>I would dare say, a majority. Albeit, a majority of a minority.
>
I would grant you that status, too.
<G>
--
Wes Struebing
I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America,
and to the republic which it established, one nation from many peoples,
promising liberty and justice for all.
Vorlonagent
"Vorlonagent" <j...@otfresno.com> wrote in message
news:N6_Xf.63703$Jd.1...@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
>
Sorry about the empty reply. I'm sure I meant to say something but I no
longer remember what it was.
Carl Dershem
news:Q9_Xf.63706$Jd.5...@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net:
>
> "Carl Dershem" <der...@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:Xns97987964E77...@70.169.32.36...
>
>> I could say the same of religious people, and often have. But that
>> doesn't
>> make atheism a religion, as so many (of the latter sort of)
>> religious people claim.
>
> It's a religious avocation to be sure. Athiesm is treated a religion
> for legal purposes.
Under certain specific conditions.
Matt Ion
> "Vorlonagent" <j...@otfresno.com> wrote in message
> news:N6_Xf.63703$Jd.1...@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
>
>
> Sorry about the empty reply. I'm sure I meant to say something but I no
> longer remember what it was.
That's either really sad... or VERY Vorlon-esque.
---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 0614-0, 04/03/2006
Tested on: 4/3/2006 10:55:23 PM
Amy Guskin
(in article <e0qsr0$1e12$1...@bowmore.utu.fi>):
> Mox Fulder wrote:
>>> http://www.ur.umn.edu/FMPro?-db=releases&-lay=web&-format=umnnewsreleases/r
I think you're too optimistic; we're living in a world - a country! - where
Missouri is trying to make Christianity the state religion, and where a group
called Vision America held a conference just last week (in DC) haranguing the
so-called 'War on Christianity' (pretty hard for 83% of the population to
claim oppression at the hands of the other 17%).
Me, I'm frightened.
Amy
Mox Fulder
[...]
> While I concur with the close relationship between ignorance and
> intolerance, I do not agree on the notion of increased societal
> stupidity and ignorance. I do think this generation is more open to
> varieties in religion, beliefs and though than the previous one, and I
> also think the previous generations were more tolerant than the one
> before. Although we have historical "setbacks" (the inquisition, World
> Wars etc.) the general trend is, in my mind, still towards more liberty
> of though.
I'd like to believe that, but I'm afraid old prejudices are transforming
themselves, instead of being overcome. For example, racism is not as overt
today as it was 20 or 30 years ago, but it's quite alive and well, living
under a different name. These social diseases are not going to go away by
themselves, and I don't see us doing all the hard work it would take to
*really* eliminate them. I certainly don't want to dismiss the incredible
dedication and sacrifices that allowed for women's right to vote, for
example. We certainly did win those battles, but I fear we simply forced
the enemy to relocate, go underground. Do we really think we won that
"war"? For all the progress we've made, women are *still* not paid the
same for the same work (particularly in the U.S.). How can that be?
Because "it takes time"?
> It becomes increasingly more difficult to control information, although
> we still have institutional monopolistic aspirations in the form of mass
> media, professionalism, educational predetermination...etc. It appears
> to be temporary and loosening its grip eventually. Increased
> informational entropy makes it more difficult to categorize information
> into stereotypical though-patterns.
> The Internet might prove itself valuable for future deliberation and
> liberation. Or perhaps I'm just optimistic?
We have to be optimistic, or we wouldn't make any progress. If we don't
hope for the best, what are the chances we'll make it happen? Zero.
I also agree that the Internet has made information more difficult to
control and censor, but all information is not created equal. Do we really
have a vote, or is it an illusion? The Internet allows just about anyone
to say just about anything, but are we saying what needs to be said, and
is this making a real difference?
We can't be a free society by having this freedom given to us. That's
not freedom, or the freedom that counts. We have to want it, and demand
it. We have to be educated enough to know what this means, and I simply
don't see this kind of educated public. Are we really making progress? If
we define "progress" as portable cellular phones that allow us to
communicate much easily, sure, but what are we communicating? Does the
society we are creating allow us to communicate what's really important,
or are we using these wonderful tools for trivial chatting? What good does
a cell phone do, if the same society that creates cell phones keeps us
too busy to talk about what really matters?
I don't think that giving up on technology is the answer, or by
increasing funding for education. That's too simplistic and unrealistic.
We need technology more than ever, but we also need to be educated enough
to use it, and I don't mean knowing how to program a VCR. What does the
general public know about genetics, nanotechnology, or biotechnology?
Close to nothing. To paraphrase Carl Sagan, because I don't have the exact
quote, creating a society that depends on science and technology, when the
public is increasingly more ignorant about this science and technology, is
a certain recipe for disaster. That's not the future. That's right now.
--
20060404 1005
Vorlonagent
"Matt Ion" <sou...@moltenimage.com> wrote in message
news:iTnYf.216927$sa3.113307@pd7tw1no...
> Vorlonagent wrote:
>> "Vorlonagent" <j...@otfresno.com> wrote in message
>> news:N6_Xf.63703$Jd.1...@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
>>
>>
>> Sorry about the empty reply. I'm sure I meant to say something but I no
>> longer remember what it was.
>
> That's either really sad... or VERY Vorlon-esque.
Either way...thanks :)
Amy Guskin
(in article <tPiYf.11435$tN3...@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>):
>
> "Vorlonagent" <j...@otfresno.com> wrote in message
> news:N6_Xf.63703$Jd.1...@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
>>
>
> Sorry about the empty reply. I'm sure I meant to say something but I no
> longer remember what it was. <<
Must have been something about Zen Buddhism...
krueg...@hotmail.com
Matt Ion wrote:
> Actually, I think the former is more in-between... the "kinder, gentler"
> extreme would be more your JMS type, who don't (at least appear to)
> consider "god people" to be "stupid", but respect their views even
> though they may differ from their own.
I was wondering when someone would think to mention JMS as a positive
example, here.
>From what I've read, the study seems to be pretty much spot-on in terms
of accuracy.
Techno Magus
> Missouri is trying to make Christianity the state religion, and where a group
> called Vision America held a conference just last week (in DC) haranguing the
> so-called 'War on Christianity' (pretty hard for 83% of the population to
> claim oppression at the hands of the other 17%).
>
> Me, I'm frightened.
Perhaps I am too optimistic, but I don't think those examples are
representative for the global change we're constantly creating. I can,
of course, only speak about my perception while claiming to have a
global perspective. On a global scale, I think closed societies are
indeed opening up; for example the whole East - from East Europe to
China (that's the majority of the the world's population I think). The
situation is not perfect - far from it! - but in a historical
perspective it's still change, and it appears to be faster than before.
Let's think about it: the Berlin Wall fell 1989, that's ONLY 17 ears
ago, now many former "Soviet-satelite-nations" are part of the EU.
Gutenberg created the print 1448, first radio broadcast 1920 (472 years
later), first public television station 1940 (492 years after Gutenberg
and 20 years after radio's public adoption). The Internet started to
really get going in the 1990s - the first to be genuinely transmissive
and interactive interactive (70-50 years after radio/TV); where people
not only receive information, they also create information and most
importantly, they have the ability communicate globally without time
delay. This is the first time that information is not restricted to a
specific spatial area, it's only restricted by access to media (China is
fighting a loosing battle I think... eventually). I'm communicating with
you, in a context of a beloved TV-series, about world evolution... this
would not have taken place twenty years ago.
It's still too early to talk about consequences, although I do think
it's going to be major shift once the generation who grows up with the
Internet as their primary source of information start to be a factor in
society (as a generation). Kids can make friends with people all over
the world in a instant, this was really unheard off when I grew up.
"The avalanche has already started"... who the pebbles are, remains to
be seen, although, abusive authority come as no surprise when it's
loosing its grip of defining reality.
Techno Magus
> I'd like to believe that, but I'm afraid old prejudices are transforming
> themselves, instead of being overcome. For example, racism is not as overt
> today as it was 20 or 30 years ago, but it's quite alive and well, living
> under a different name. These social diseases are not going to go away by
> themselves, and I don't see us doing all the hard work it would take to
> *really* eliminate them. I certainly don't want to dismiss the incredible
> dedication and sacrifices that allowed for women's right to vote, for
> example. We certainly did win those battles, but I fear we simply forced
> the enemy to relocate, go underground. Do we really think we won that
> "war"? For all the progress we've made, women are *still* not paid the
> same for the same work (particularly in the U.S.). How can that be?
> Because "it takes time"?
Fighting a straight battle against prejudices as a semantic entity seems
to me like a lost battle. Why? Because prejudices do not necessary stem
from one source, one causal relationship, and they also seem to be
illusionary; as much created as perceived. This appears to be the case
for any values I think.
A child is usually afraid of the dark for a period of time, she feels
afraid when it's dark, thus she creates a relationship between darkness
and her emotions, hence a creation of 'being afraid of the dark'. For
her, there's a single causality (darkness), although we elders know
there's much more to it than that (her emotions, growing up,
information, experience etc).
When you say, for example, that racism is less overt than 20-30 years
ago, you might be right in that there's still racism - racism not being
eradicated but transformed. Although, one could say that 'overt racism'
is being eradicated. So in a way, there's a change towards the better,
albeit not enough for an educated person's values - but it's still
progress, no less. Socially accepted overt racism is not the same thing
as socially hidden or individually accepted racism, they go under the
same label, although their implications might be totally different. The
third example now being justified under the notion of "freedom of though
and speech", which might indicate an individual struggle in finding a
new place in society.
> I also agree that the Internet has made information more difficult to
> control and censor, but all information is not created equal. Do we really
> have a vote, or is it an illusion? The Internet allows just about anyone
> to say just about anything, but are we saying what needs to be said, and
> is this making a real difference?
What needs to be said is not written in stone. I don't think we should
establish an authority of truth which somehow acclaims its view to be
the right one. I guess I'm fine with as many "truths" as possible.
> What good does a cell phone do, if the same society that creates cell phones keeps us
> too busy to talk about what really matters?
It's good in the way that we can still talk more, no matter the subject.
It's good in the way it dissolves territorial boundaries with the act of
communication. Some want to talk about things that matter globally, some
like to talk about thins that matter personally; both are still
communicating and indirectly making territorial boundaries seem more
artificial every day.
A Utopian scenario might look like this: Oppression done in the name of
"national security" becomes absurd if territory is perceived as
non-geographical, no nation to "secure", no "national" treats in the
first place. We are a long way from this, but still approaching
non-spatial integration in one way or another.
Scenario 2: It's hard to be a racist if race is defined by genetic
assembly and not by skin color.
Once the monopolies of definitions crumble, people are forced to think
for themselves. Many will go astray, I'm sure, but the general direction
might still be good.
> To paraphrase Carl Sagan, because I don't have the exact
> quote, creating a society that depends on science and technology, when the
> public is increasingly more ignorant about this science and technology, is
> a certain recipe for disaster. That's not the future. That's right now.
I cannot directly relate to this paraphrase because I don't know if the
public is really more ignorant about science and technology; perhaps
they just take it for granted, hence they have incorporated such
thinking without the need for assurance (this would, of course, be
alarming in its irony)? I don't know! One could also change the
argument: Do we rely too much on science and technology in defining our
reality, in defining who we are and what we want? Ulric Beck's "Risk
Society" is a good example in illustrating arbitrary (almost absurd)
trust in scientific arguments, yet genuine dependability of science. The
world is full of paradoxes, we must learn to live with them.
Chris
Rob Perkins <rper...@usa.net> wrote:
> If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's
> a duck.
>
> If "religion" is the duck, then "atheism" looks and walks a lot like
> many variants of it, even if it doesn't quack "God", it still quacks "no
> God", which to my mind is rather duck-billed...
>
> I could get into discussion the philosophy of philosophy
> (meta-philosophy?) but I like my metaphor a little too much today to
> sully it with exposition. :-D
>
> Rob, who prefers to follow people who have seen this duck
but if she weighs the same as a duck, then she floats, and she's a
witch! burn her! burn her!
...chris, claiming victory on yet another thread.
Matt Ion
Ooo, nice one!
---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 0614-1, 04/04/2006
Tested on: 4/5/2006 7:47:18 AM
Matt Ion
But just WHOSE duck is it? SINCLAIR'S???
> ...chris, claiming victory on yet another thread.
Not so fast there, Sparky!
---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 0614-1, 04/04/2006
Tested on: 4/5/2006 7:46:54 AM
Mox Fulder
> to me like a lost battle. Why? Because prejudices do not necessary stem
> from one source, one causal relationship, and they also seem to be
> illusionary; as much created as perceived. This appears to be the case
> for any values I think.
Not sure what that means. If we have separate restrooms for "whites" and
"blacks," for example, we are teaching children we are different. On the
other hand, if we have the same privileges and rules for everyone, we are
teaching children we are equal. That's a rather straightforward battle. Of
course, this is not enough to eradicate racism, but it's a start.
We can't go into someone's mind and change the way they think, so that's
never going to be an option for fighting prejudice. If that's what you
mean by no straight battle, of course, I agree.
What we can do is promote the notion that we are equal. This goes far
beyond "tolerance." We should not simply be able to put up with each
other, but recognize and appreciate the richness and strength of our
diversity. Being equal and being the same is not...well, the same thing.
[...]
> When you say, for example, that racism is less overt than 20-30 years
> ago, you might be right in that there's still racism - racism not being
> eradicated but transformed. Although, one could say that 'overt racism'
> is being eradicated. So in a way, there's a change towards the better,
I agree that not having public lynchings is better than having them. I'm
just pointing out we are still far from the goal, so we should not sit
back and relax, as if we had already arrived.
[...]
> What needs to be said is not written in stone. I don't think we should
> establish an authority of truth which somehow acclaims its view to be
> the right one. I guess I'm fine with as many "truths" as possible.
I wasn't phrasing "what needs to be said" as an answer, but a question.
I'm not telling you or anyone else what the important things are, I'm
*asking* what those important things are, and whether we are discussing
them.
> > What good does a cell phone do, if the same society that creates cell phones keeps us
> > too busy to talk about what really matters?
> It's good in the way that we can still talk more, no matter the subject.
I dunno. If it's just quantity instead of quality, it's just noise. I'd
rather see more signal.
> It's good in the way it dissolves territorial boundaries with the act of
> communication. Some want to talk about things that matter globally, some
> like to talk about thins that matter personally; both are still
> communicating and indirectly making territorial boundaries seem more
> artificial every day.
I'm not suggesting the only valid form of communication is to constantly
talk about vital global subjects. Are we saying what needs to be said on a
personal scale, as well as a global scale?
To continue a previous example, cell phones allow us to talk more, and
more often, but what are we saying? Anything that really matters? Not
just in terms of world peace, but in our personal lives. Are we really
connecting better? Do we understand each other better than before?
> A Utopian scenario might look like this: Oppression done in the name of
> "national security" becomes absurd if territory is perceived as
> non-geographical, no nation to "secure", no "national" treats in the
> first place. We are a long way from this, but still approaching
> non-spatial integration in one way or another.
> Scenario 2: It's hard to be a racist if race is defined by genetic
> assembly and not by skin color.
> Once the monopolies of definitions crumble, people are forced to think
> for themselves. Many will go astray, I'm sure, but the general direction
> might still be good.
This goes back to my question about whether we really are enjoying
more freedom than before, or we simply have that illusion. I don't expect
the answer to be a simple "yes" or "no." Who is making the really
important decisions? If we are "free" to talk about anything we want, but
we don't have a vote, we are not really free. Again, I don't have the
answer. I'm asking the question.
[...]
> I cannot directly relate to this paraphrase because I don't know if the
> public is really more ignorant about science and technology; perhaps
Oh, yes, we are. I don't know if we are *more* ignorant than before in
absolute terms, but I do know we depend on technology more than before,
and we are not keeping up in knowing or understanding how the world works.
For example, how are we going to make informed decisions about new
contraception options if we don't understand them? [Consider the ignorance
behind the controversy over the so-called "morning after pill," and how
some people consider it an "abortion" pill. Regardless of what your
beliefs are on abortion, the lack of understanding of how human
reproduction works is frightening. For an adult to not understand the
difference between preventing conception and terminating a pregnancy, is
completely unacceptable.]
In fact, it's not just a question of technology. There's an epidemic of
generalized ignorance. What about the percentage of people who can't even
name the three branches of government? I'm not talking about everyone
needing a degree in political science. There is some *basic* information
we *all* need to have, to make educated decisions as valuable members of
a society. If we don't have that *basic* information, and maybe don't
even care about it, what kind of society do we have? How can we claim to
be making the important decisions?
The "who decides what is basic information" question is disingenuous. Who
decides a green light means "go" and a red light means "stop"? We work it
out. We come to an agreement, and then we modify that agreement, as
needed. We don't just give up because no one has the perfect answer.
> they just take it for granted, hence they have incorporated such
> thinking without the need for assurance (this would, of course, be
> alarming in its irony)? I don't know! One could also change the
> argument: Do we rely too much on science and technology in defining our
> reality, in defining who we are and what we want? Ulric Beck's "Risk
> Society" is a good example in illustrating arbitrary (almost absurd)
> trust in scientific arguments, yet genuine dependability of science. The
> world is full of paradoxes, we must learn to live with them.
Thing is, technology is not just some alien thing that fell from the sky.
To me, asking whether we depend too much on science and technology is like
asking whether we depend too much on reading and writing, or the ability
to think. Even prehistoric people needed effective tools to hunt,
protect themselves, and so on.
--
20060405 1050
Techno Magus
> Not sure what that means. If we have separate restrooms for "whites" and
> "blacks," for example, we are teaching children we are different. On the
> other hand, if we have the same privileges and rules for everyone, we are
> teaching children we are equal. That's a rather straightforward battle. Of
> course, this is not enough to eradicate racism, but it's a start.
Ah, yes, I can see the confusion. I was making a distinction between
prejudices and racism... prejudices can be in favor of the positive and
the negative.
Indeed, prejudices imply an imprint, and of course, fighting a battle
against negative prejudices would mean re-imprinting or at least
neutralizing an existing imprint. Although we cant' go inside anyones
brain and force a re-imprint, we can make it harder for people to draw
such clear cut dichotomizations that lead to predetermined values. In
other words, making people demand less definite answers; or refuse to
give such easy answers; or at least make people skeptical when such
answers are given.
Teaching children equality is always good, although somewhat vague when
many denotations and connotations are combined into a system. Teaching
children not to draw artificial distinctions that could lead to
prejudices would lessen the pressure of re-imprinting later on.
> I dunno. If it's just quantity instead of quality, it's just noise. I'd
> rather see more signal.
It might be noise in the short term, albeit a clear signal in the long
term. Who knows?
> Thing is, technology is not just some alien thing that fell from the sky.
> To me, asking whether we depend too much on science and technology is like
> asking whether we depend too much on reading and writing, or the ability
> to think. Even prehistoric people needed effective tools to hunt,
> protect themselves, and so on.
What i mean is the DDT-problem. DDT was considered extremely safe (so
safe that poor kids were administered DDT-baths)... until it became
extremely poisonous and dangerous for society. Scientific knowledge
created the notion of safety (limit values) as well as it later created
the notion of danger (different limit values). One could have made the
lay judgment (and contradicted what scientists said) and thought: "since
DDT is so efficient in killing a variety of living organisms, it might
be pretty efficient in killing people as well". Such reason would, of
course, have been completely irrational then, and perhaps even been
labeled ignorant or primitive.
On one hand, we need further science in order to detect such disasters.
On the other hand, science also create serious risks that can go
undetected or remain innumerable (e.g. nuclear disasters or climate
warming). This is the paradox I wanted to illuminate. We should avoid
fideism in all forms when defining our reality.
Chris
Matt Ion <sou...@moltenimage.com> wrote:
> Chris wrote:
> > In article <49dc5jF...@individual.net>,
> > Rob Perkins <rper...@usa.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's
> >>a duck.
> >>
> >>If "religion" is the duck, then "atheism" looks and walks a lot like
> >>many variants of it, even if it doesn't quack "God", it still quacks "no
> >>God", which to my mind is rather duck-billed...
> >>
> >>I could get into discussion the philosophy of philosophy
> >>(meta-philosophy?) but I like my metaphor a little too much today to
> >>sully it with exposition. :-D
> >>
> >>Rob, who prefers to follow people who have seen this duck
> >
> >
> > but if she weighs the same as a duck, then she floats, and she's a
> > witch! burn her! burn her!
>
> But just WHOSE duck is it? SINCLAIR'S???
>
> > ...chris, claiming victory on yet another thread.
>
> Not so fast there, Sparky!
the rule of monty python states that he who invokes python in the thread
first wins!
now really, no need to be so silly about all of this, i win the thread,
but you can have the strainer. ;-)
...Chris
Rob Perkins
> I think you're too optimistic; we're living in a world - a country! - where
> Missouri is trying to make Christianity the state religion, and where a group
> called Vision America held a conference just last week (in DC) haranguing the
> so-called 'War on Christianity' (pretty hard for 83% of the population to
> claim oppression at the hands of the other 17%).
Just to cite an extreme example, wasn't that about the distribution of
the majority/minority in Rwanda? With the genocide inflicted on the
majority?
Or do I have my recent history wrong on that?
Rob
Wesley Struebing
Or how about the Fred Phelps crowd who are applauding the death of
American troops in the name of Christianity?
And with FoF (Focus on the Family) just right down the road in
Colorado Springs, well...
Rob Perkins
> the rule of monty python states that he who invokes python in the thread
> first wins!
What if you invoke one of python's nazi skits? Is that a way to turn
your fortunes around into winning, and, well, lose at the same time?
http://www.ibras.dk/montypython/episode12.htm
Rob
Matt Ion
But I don't WANT a strainer! I want..... to SING!
---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 0614-1, 04/04/2006
Tested on: 4/5/2006 9:52:42 PM
David Williams
"Rob Perkins" <rper...@usa.net> wrote in message
news:49dc5jF...@individual.net...
> If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a
> duck.
>
> If "religion" is the duck, then "atheism" looks and walks a lot like many
> variants of it, even if it doesn't quack "God", it still quacks "no God",
> which to my mind is rather duck-billed...
I think some confusion lies in the fact that atheism ends in "-ism." An
"ism" is generally regarded as a specific belief-system, or as you put, a
sort of religion.
I have always viewed it as a word where the accent should be on the first
syllable... Actually, saying it out loud just now, the primary accent is on
the second syllable, with a secondary accent on the first. A-THE'-ism
In other words a simple belief that there is no God.
Nothing more.
However, I do recognize that there are some very activist atheists. IMO,
they do SOME good in fighting for the first amendment. But often they just
aggravate religious people around them. I believe it's mostly because their
cause is misunderstood. But some of them can be prickly. For the more
extremist types, I actually like to use a different term, "ANTI-theists."
For my own self, I've found some people feel a little more comfortable if I
avoid the "A" word and simply call myself a "non-believer." Has always
meant the same thing to me, but seems to come across as less "threatening"
somehow.
Practical differences?
Well, for example, I'm not against allowing prayer in public schools - just
so long as it's not the authority figures of the school (teachers,
administrators, coaches) leading the class in prayers. Nothing wrong on
appropriate occasions in allowing brief moments of silence for the students
to reflect on something, say a national tragedy like 9-11, and to pray in
their own fashion and according to their own beliefs. But for Mr. Smith the
math teacher to lead the class in an "Our Father..." ...clearly NOT
appropriate. Not in a PUBLIC school at least.
I'm not in favor of overtly religious displays in government buildings or on
government property. Perhaps it's because I live in a very cosmopolitan
area that has a huge Jewish population, as well as other major religions - I
see erecting a giant Nativity on the lawn of City Hall to be exclusionary of
other faiths, including those who are non-believers. More importantly, I
feel it's entirely unnecessary. What is the point? It's not as though the
church on every other street isn't doing so. And it's damn near impossible
to live in this country without being aware when the Christmas SEASON is at
hand. Why should it be the local government's responsibility to remind us
of the holiday's religious origin. I think the first amendment is pretty
clear on that...
....BUT the recent story I heard of a government employee who was ordered to
remove a plastic easter bunny from her desk... now that's pretty nutso.
....I could go on and on, but I have to get back to work.
Regards,
David W.
Mox Fulder
> prejudices and racism... prejudices can be in favor of the positive and
> the negative.
Do you have an example of a positive one?
> Indeed, prejudices imply an imprint, and of course, fighting a battle
> against negative prejudices would mean re-imprinting or at least
> neutralizing an existing imprint. Although we cant' go inside anyones
> brain and force a re-imprint, we can make it harder for people to draw
> such clear cut dichotomizations that lead to predetermined values. In
> other words, making people demand less definite answers; or refuse to
> give such easy answers; or at least make people skeptical when such
> answers are given.
> Teaching children equality is always good, although somewhat vague when
> many denotations and connotations are combined into a system. Teaching
> children not to draw artificial distinctions that could lead to
> prejudices would lessen the pressure of re-imprinting later on.
If we didn't have damage to repair, I don't think we would have to teach
equality at all, but rather *not* teach intolerance or spread ignorance.
We already know that kids, left to themselves, will relate to other kids
regardless of ethnic background, socioeconomic status, and so on. Bigotry
is acquired, not innate. The *potential* for bigotry is clearly built-in,
just like the potential to be creative, but how these potentials are
expressed and developed, or discarded, is a matter of choice.
[...]
> What i mean is the DDT-problem. DDT was considered extremely safe (so
> safe that poor kids were administered DDT-baths)... until it became
> extremely poisonous and dangerous for society. Scientific knowledge
> created the notion of safety (limit values) as well as it later created
Was it scientific knowledge that "created" that notion of safety, or was
it the corporations' need to promote DDT as a safe pesticide, to make a
profit?
> the notion of danger (different limit values). One could have made the
> lay judgment (and contradicted what scientists said) and thought: "since
> DDT is so efficient in killing a variety of living organisms, it might
> be pretty efficient in killing people as well". Such reason would, of
> course, have been completely irrational then, and perhaps even been
> labeled ignorant or primitive.
I'm not an expert on DDT, but I've read that still today there is no
conclusive link between DDT and cancer, and that more people die from
malaria (because of the ban on DDT), than people would die from exposure
to DDT. Also, the alternatives to DDT may not be any less poisonous.
Science hardly gives perfect solutions. Every life-saving drug has side
effects. Problem is, these issues are often contaminated by politics and
economics.
> On one hand, we need further science in order to detect such disasters.
> On the other hand, science also create serious risks that can go
> undetected or remain innumerable (e.g. nuclear disasters or climate
> warming). This is the paradox I wanted to illuminate. We should avoid
> fideism in all forms when defining our reality.
Scientists are going to be the first ones to warn about the danger. Sure,
scientists created nuclear weapons, but who decided to use them, how to
use them, when, and against whom? Who decides to ignore global warming?
I think scientists do have ethical obligations, and they should refuse to
participate in developing weapons, for example. On the other hand, blaming
science itself for what *we* choose to do with that knowledge is like
blaming a hammer when you hit your finger with it.
--
20060406 0855
Rob Perkins
> "Rob Perkins" <rper...@usa.net> wrote in message
> news:49dc5jF...@individual.net...
>
>>If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a
>>duck.
>>
>>If "religion" is the duck, then "atheism" looks and walks a lot like many
>>variants of it, even if it doesn't quack "God", it still quacks "no God",
>>which to my mind is rather duck-billed...
>
>
> I think some confusion lies in the fact that atheism ends in "-ism." An
> "ism" is generally regarded as a specific belief-system, or as you put, a
> sort of religion.
From "No God" proceeds every sort of moral quacking the atheist may
choose, just as it does from "God". We've seen religious people quack
practically anything from their center of belief, from "love the
ignorant poor" to "kill the infidel and scatter his..." well, you get
the idea.
Hence, duck-billed, and so, no, not "nothing more". Rather, it's
"everything else".
From that, we may suppose that atheism in a person is pretty harmless,
or at the very least no more harmful than any other reason-free premise.
(i.e. one can't prove "no God" any more than one can prove any negative)
> Practical differences?
Even the religious draw the same lines you do. I come very close to
ambivalence concerning the school prayer thing, and gaudy nativity
scenes on the town hall, but at the same time, I don't want to see the
Ten Commandments ripped from every courthouse; they're an example of
ancient law-giving and part of the Western heritage. Nor would I want
our pledges, mottoes, or money changed in that regard without a repeal
from Congress.
Rob
Amy Guskin
(in article <mok8329e2elqao4rg...@4ax.com>):
I hope the wind usually blows the other way, Wes - otherwise the stink would
probably be unbearable.
Amy
Amy Guskin
(in article <49j25oF...@individual.net>):
A cursory scan of documents I Googled says that 1million were killed, while
the country has a population of 8.4 million. I confess though that I didn't
look very far.
http://www.survivors-fund.org.uk/history/stats_rwan.htm
Amy
Charlie Edmondson
Or was DDT the problem? There were also studies that seemed to indicate
that there was another mechanism besides DDT causing the problems with
eggshell development, but they didn't contribute to public hysteria
which caused great contributions to environmental causes! There was a
lot of 'science' in that decision that was biased in its conclusions,
but are now considered 'gospel' by the world and community at large.
What it really means is that millions have died to provide funds for
environmental organizations, and millions more shall die because panic
and hysteria is where they get their money from!
Charlie
(Source: Kicking the Sacred Cow by James Hogan. Definitely an
interesting book for free thinkers...)
Amy Guskin
(in article <49jfg4F...@individual.net>):
So if your posting name is "Mr. Hilter," you automatically lose and win every
thread in which you participate?
Amy
Amy Guskin
(in article <ssGdnd1IT836rKjZ...@comcast.com>):
>
>
> I have always viewed it as a word where the accent should be on the first
> syllable... Actually, saying it out loud just now, the primary accent is on
> the second syllable, with a secondary accent on the first. <<
Not according to the dictionary. I've never heard it pronounced any other
way than with the accent on the first syllable.
Amy
xla...@cix.compulink.co.uk
<SNIP>
>Gutenberg created the print 1448, first radio broadcast 1920 (472 years
>later), first public television station 1940
<SNIP>
Oi! Just a minute - don't be so parochial! TV may have started in
1940 in the US, but we had a public TV service from the BBC in
London (in 'high definition' - actually 405 lines) in 1936! Closed
down at start of WWII, reopened 1947 or so.
Regards, /Peter/
David Williams
"Amy Guskin" <ais...@fjordstone.com> wrote in message
news:0001HW.C05ACE02...@news.verizon.net...
Hence, I wrote "...should be..."
The fact that it isn't...
David W.
Vorlonagent
>>> I think you're too optimistic; we're living in a world - a country! -
>>> where
>>> Missouri is trying to make Christianity the state religion, and where a
>>> group
>>> called Vision America held a conference just last week (in DC)
>>> haranguing
>>> the
>>> so-called 'War on Christianity' (pretty hard for 83% of the population
>>> to
>>> claim oppression at the hands of the other 17%).
>>
>> Just to cite an extreme example, wasn't that about the distribution of
>> the majority/minority in Rwanda? With the genocide inflicted on the
>> majority?
>>
>> Or do I have my recent history wrong on that? <<
>
> A cursory scan of documents I Googled says that 1million were killed,
> while
> the country has a population of 8.4 million. I confess though that I
> didn't
> look very far.
There is an assumption being made here also: That the 83% is a single
cohesive bloc, and it isn't. Many people ID themselves as in some way
"christian" but don't necessarily incorporate christianity into their belief
systems. What percentage of the US population consider themselves
practicing christians?
Nor are the battle-lines as cleanly drawn. If there is a "War on
Christianity", then I know of christians who would be considered to be
collaborators for the other side. The church--*church*--I went to as a
young adult currently greets with enthusiasm sermons that deconstruct, parse
and often discard christian tradition. This is a church in a mainstream
denomination, the United Methodist Church. It's also an extremely leftist
venue.
Hostility to christianity does seem to exist. Consider the reception that
Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" got here. It was called a "snuff
film" on several occasions, by people who rightly knew it didn't fit the
definition, thus reducing the phase to an epithet hurled at the movie.
Amy Guskin
(in article <rsidnd3NJ7yUd6vZ...@comcast.com>):
Either I'm completely misunderstanding you, or you're expressing this badly.
You say "the accent _should_ be on the first syllable." Well, it _is_ on the
first syllable, so "should be" doesn't apply. And, you say "saying it out
loud just now, the primary accent is on the second syllable." No, it isn't.
It's on the _first_ syllable.
What am I missing?
Amy
Wesley Struebing
<ais...@fjordstone.com> wrote:
....especially in the Spring, when the weather wars, the ground is
ripe, and...luckily we're about 65 miles apart, with some large hills
in the way.
Wesley Struebing
Hmmmm. Where were those studies, Charles? Only ones I've heard
of/read are unanimous in describing the effects of DDT...(or does
Hogan give his cites?)
Wesley Struebing
Coming from that heretical (grin) leftist ELCA (Evangelical Lutheran
Church in America), I'm obviously biased, but what makes the UMC
leftist? Their stand on homosexuality? That they gleefully ordain
women?
Sorry, John, that was a bit facetious, but I am curious as to how you
arrived at that conclusion. You probably know more about the
denomination than I, so I ask.
>
>Hostility to christianity does seem to exist. Consider the reception that
>Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" got here. It was called a "snuff
>film" on several occasions, by people who rightly knew it didn't fit the
>definition, thus reducing the phase to an epithet hurled at the movie.
The hostility to Gibson's film was NOT hostility to Christianity.
(and, no, I'm debating whether there IS hostility to Christianity -
there IS - no question. Of course, there is hostility somewhere to
every faith I can think of. We humans have a long way to go in the
tolerance arena)
Chris
Matt Ion <sou...@moltenimage.com> wrote:
stop! stop! there will be no singing!
now you, guard this door!
...Chris
Chris
Rob Perkins <rper...@usa.net> wrote:
>
> > the rule of monty python states that he who invokes python in the thread
> > first wins!
>
> What if you invoke one of python's nazi skits? Is that a way to turn
> your fortunes around into winning, and, well, lose at the same time?
that's a silly idea. due a silly answer, it will cause the universe to
collapse in upon itself.
...Chris, i'll be at milliways
Techno Magus
> Do you have an example of a positive one?
Well, that's a question of subjectivity, as always. Prejudice, like
preconception or predilection highlights the prefix; so if you can have
prejudice against something, you can also have prejudice in favor of
something.
"Always look at the bright side of life!"
"Every human is valuable!"
I don't think prejudice per see, means anything, if there is no
knowledge of the object under judgment, hence it's a most relative term.
Racial prejudice, on the one hand, is directly relative to the notion of
race. Racism, on the other hand, can be considered a system; a system
consisting of many preconceived beliefs regarding ones own race and/or
regarding other races. Moreover, the system of racism also includes
preconceived beliefs of how race is determined (e.g. skin color).
> Science hardly gives perfect solutions. Every life-saving drug has side
> effects. Problem is, these issues are often contaminated by politics and
> economics.
DDT was an example highlighting the elusiveness of "limit values" or
"degree of safeness". I'm no expert on DDT either, although the
scientific justification often seems as biased as they are political -
perhaps because scientific arguments are indeed politicized more and
more. In my opinion, scientific arguments seem to have been under a
great deal of inflation when different scientific fields claim authority
over a specific subject/problem.
Moreover, it's somewhat common that different researches about one
particular issue can come up with very contradictory result, although
each being scientifically solid. Science has become increasingly
relative in many ways, thus should perhaps also be considered so in
everyday life.
> scientists created nuclear weapons, but who decided to use them, how to
> use them, when, and against whom? Who decides to ignore global warming?
> I think scientists do have ethical obligations, and they should refuse to
> participate in developing weapons, for example. On the other hand, blaming
> science itself for what *we* choose to do with that knowledge is like
> blaming a hammer when you hit your finger with it.
I agree to some extent - I am a proponent of science as well. Although
we cannot pull science out of the equation when discussing usage of
scientific knowledge. For instance, when it comes to environmental
problems there's a plethora of different scientific fields involved:
Chemists, biologists, physiologists, psychologists, geologists,
economists, sociologists, botanists, ecologists etc. etc. Every field
will in one way or another claim authority of direction; it becomes a
question of choosing which perspectives should be considered right - and
of course arbitrary in many ways. Justifying an action, based on
scientific justification, becomes a most difficult affair, almost like
lottery.
Vorlonagent
"Wesley Struebing" <str...@carpedementem.org> wrote in message
news:f94e325mqnhi2hr15...@4ax.com...
>>There is an assumption being made here also: That the 83% is a single
>>cohesive bloc, and it isn't. Many people ID themselves as in some way
>>"christian" but don't necessarily incorporate christianity into their
>>belief
>>systems. What percentage of the US population consider themselves
>>practicing christians?
>>
>>Nor are the battle-lines as cleanly drawn. If there is a "War on
>>Christianity", then I know of christians who would be considered to be
>>collaborators for the other side. The church--*church*--I went to as a
>>young adult currently greets with enthusiasm sermons that deconstruct,
>>parse
>>and often discard christian tradition. This is a church in a mainstream
>>denomination, the United Methodist Church. It's also an extremely leftist
>>venue.
> Coming from that heretical (grin) leftist ELCA (Evangelical Lutheran
> Church in America), I'm obviously biased, but what makes the UMC
> leftist? Their stand on homosexuality? That they gleefully ordain
> women?
>
> Sorry, John, that was a bit facetious, but I am curious as to how you
> arrived at that conclusion. You probably know more about the
> denomination than I, so I ask.
You want the time?
Here's how to build a clock...
The UMC as a denomination is, to my understanding, heatedly divided on
social questions such as homosexuality. My understanding is that there are
both strong conservative and liberal wings to the church and the only thing
they can agree on is that they don't want the denomination to fracture down
the middle. The UMC seems to constantly have small elements that are
joining of breaking away, which raises the spectre of a total blowout.
Wesley is, IMHO resprsentative of a portion of the churches in the UMC, but
it doesn't represent the denomination as a whole.
I was not referring to the United Methodist Church as an organization, but a
single church within easy driving distance of my house. Here's a link to
the church's website.
I don't go there anymore but from what my mom tells me their politics are as
leftist as I remember. They may have drifted more leftward but it's hard to
tell because my mom's accounts are colored by her own perspective, which is
more traditional than mine.
You will recall that about 40 UMC pastors got together to perform a gay
marriage is sacramento? The man at the heart of it, Don Fado, was the
pastor at my church when I was most active there. One of the attending
pastors at that service was Larry Patton, Wesley's current pastor (ad a
youth minister there back when I was in high school).
Don Fado's Wesley is both why I was a liberal during the 80's and why I no
longer am now. For Don, political awareness sprung from a deep reserve of
faith. Choosing to be as christlike as he was able, his politics followed,
swinging to the liberal, but you could always tell what the driving force
was. (well, I could. My mom might tell you a different story) Don
embraced spiritual traditions beyond Christianity (and I suspect this is
what rattled my mom, who is a methodist PK) and I learned bits of alternate
faiths, as well as meeting other mentors in the alternate spirituality area.
Don moved on and as the 80's drew to a close, I began to look around me at
liberalism as a political movement and I increasingly didn't like what I
saw. I saw power politics and I didn't see any of the spiritual
underpinnings I associated with the moment. Liberalism on a national scale
was spiritually bankrupt pursuing power first, ahead of all other concerns.
The word "liberal" no longer fit me. Not because *I* had changed so much as
they way liberalism as a phenomenon had changed. I had the choice of
whether to try to keep my personal defintion of the word alive or dump it as
a self-descriptor. I took the John Sheridan approach and dumped "liberal".
I'll grant my politics have drifted rightward since, but the Christian Right
would not call me "friend".
I find the need to balance belief and practicality. Liberalism has
incorporated Socialism as a core tenet, for example. I consider Socialism
to be the "bread" side of the phrase "bread and circuses". Unsustainable
folly that warehouses human beings, encouraging a dependency on government
structure and thereby crushes dreams under the booheel of that dependency.
On the other hand, you won't find a trace of support in me for posting the
Ten Commandments in schools, to say nothing of adult-led prayer. The State
has no business poking its nose into the religious lives of school children,
even if it's with the best of intentions.
On the other-other hand, I find it perfectly acceptable to allow a teacher
to wear a cross in the classroom as personal jewelry. I draw a distinction
between the teacher as an individual with First Ammendment free-expression
and free-exercise rights and the agent of the State, whose First-ammendment
obligation is to stay neutral on matters of religion. My concern starts and
ends with the teacher using their position of authority to evangelize. I
don't see wearing a cross to work as "evangelizing."
>>Hostility to christianity does seem to exist. Consider the reception that
>>Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" got here. It was called a "snuff
>>film" on several occasions, by people who rightly knew it didn't fit the
>>definition, thus reducing the phase to an epithet hurled at the movie.
>
> The hostility to Gibson's film was NOT hostility to Christianity.
> (and, no, I'm debating whether there IS hostility to Christianity -
> there IS - no question. Of course, there is hostility somewhere to
> every faith I can think of. We humans have a long way to go in the
> tolerance arena)
Then where did all the rancor towards the film come from? Why did this
rancor come either overwhelmingly or exclusively from the Left? Why
couldn't critics of the film just say, "eww, I really do NOT want to see a
man whipped, tortured and curcified" and go on with life?
The only thing that distinguishes "Passion" IS is its undeniable "christian"
nature.
If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck...
(it's a cat)
Vorlonagent
"Chris" <pel...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:pelzo63-204B85...@news.east.earthlink.net...
>> > now really, no need to be so silly about all of this, i win the thread,
>> > but you can have the strainer. ;-)
>>
>> But I don't WANT a strainer! I want..... to SING!
>>
>
> stop! stop! there will be no singing!
>
> now you, guard this door!
I'll stay 'ere and make sure 'e doesn't leave.
<hic>
Carl Dershem
news:KUSZf.524$Lm5...@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com:
>>>Hostility to christianity does seem to exist. Consider the reception
>>>that Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" got here. It was
>>>called a "snuff film" on several occasions, by people who rightly
>>>knew it didn't fit the definition, thus reducing the phase to an
>>>epithet hurled at the movie.
>>
>> The hostility to Gibson's film was NOT hostility to Christianity.
>> (and, no, I'm debating whether there IS hostility to Christianity -
>> there IS - no question. Of course, there is hostility somewhere to
>> every faith I can think of. We humans have a long way to go in the
>> tolerance arena)
>
> Then where did all the rancor towards the film come from? Why did
> this rancor come either overwhelmingly or exclusively from the Left?
> Why couldn't critics of the film just say, "eww, I really do NOT want
> to see a man whipped, tortured and curcified" and go on with life?
>
> The only thing that distinguishes "Passion" IS is its undeniable
> "christian" nature.
For a certain value of "christian."
Many of us disliked the film intensely for many reasons.
1) It's depiction of jews was, for many, extremely and nasty. There
were many strong jewish characters in the film that were stereotypical
'untermehschen' or 'Shylock' types, and were repugnant, and many feel
that was itentional, reflecting Gibson's well known anti-semitism.
2) The film was horrendously badly made.
3) Many of the core "christian" elements in the film were not so much
christian as the sort of wobbly evangelical_Fallwellist_dominionist
garbage that makes those who read the bible as an example of a positive
philosophy want to barf. It was all about pain and anguish and suffering
and payback and all that crap, which many of us consider NOT the foremost
elements of christianity (look at the beatitudes for what we consider to
be what the philosophy is about).
4) As a film, and as an example of the philosophy that supports Gibson's
apparent (and oft-stated) mindset, it was repellent, repugnant and often
disgusting.
Personally, I MUCH prefer the character you find from what the 4 primary
gospels agree on as Jesus to the stuff in Gibson's film. Or, to expand,
the character Chris Moore developed in his philosophical comedy "Lamb."
Can't say how many others agree, but several I've spoken to do.
cd
--
The difference between immorality and immortality is "T". I like Earl
Grey.
Mox Fulder
> Mox Fulder wrote:
> > Do you have an example of a positive one?
> Well, that's a question of subjectivity, as always. Prejudice, like
> preconception or predilection highlights the prefix; so if you can have
> prejudice against something, you can also have prejudice in favor of
> something.
> "Always look at the bright side of life!"
> "Every human is valuable!"
So...you would be prejudiced against the dark side of life and not
considering every human valuable? I'm not sure I would call that a
prejudice.
> I don't think prejudice per see, means anything, if there is no
> knowledge of the object under judgment, hence it's a most relative term.
> Racial prejudice, on the one hand, is directly relative to the notion of
> race. Racism, on the other hand, can be considered a system; a system
> consisting of many preconceived beliefs regarding ones own race and/or
> regarding other races. Moreover, the system of racism also includes
> preconceived beliefs of how race is determined (e.g. skin color).
Sorry, I'm still not clear on what the difference between "racial
prejudice" and "racism" would be.
> > Science hardly gives perfect solutions. Every life-saving drug has side
> > effects. Problem is, these issues are often contaminated by politics and
> > economics.
> DDT was an example highlighting the elusiveness of "limit values" or
> "degree of safeness". I'm no expert on DDT either, although the
> scientific justification often seems as biased as they are political -
> perhaps because scientific arguments are indeed politicized more and
> more. In my opinion, scientific arguments seem to have been under a
> great deal of inflation when different scientific fields claim authority
> over a specific subject/problem.
Well, we do have the ability to conduct studies and test theories. Facts
are not for politicians or special interest groups to decide.
> Moreover, it's somewhat common that different researches about one
> particular issue can come up with very contradictory result, although
> each being scientifically solid. Science has become increasingly
> relative in many ways, thus should perhaps also be considered so in
> everyday life.
There are areas where the data is more open to interpretation than others,
specially when dealing with complex problems, but that doesn't mean it's
beyond our understanding.
[...]
> I agree to some extent - I am a proponent of science as well. Although
> we cannot pull science out of the equation when discussing usage of
> scientific knowledge. For instance, when it comes to environmental
> problems there's a plethora of different scientific fields involved:
> Chemists, biologists, physiologists, psychologists, geologists,
> economists, sociologists, botanists, ecologists etc. etc. Every field
> will in one way or another claim authority of direction; it becomes a
> question of choosing which perspectives should be considered right - and
> of course arbitrary in many ways. Justifying an action, based on
> scientific justification, becomes a most difficult affair, almost like
> lottery.
Ah, but I don't think they are in conflict or competition. They rather
complement each other. Their goal is the same--the search forbetter
understanding. A politician's goal is quite different, however, and that
creates a conflict.
For example, Einstein didn't prove Newton was wrong. Newton's laws work
well enough to land on the moon. What Einstein did was refine the theory.
--
20060408 1130
Rob Perkins
> Either I'm completely misunderstanding you, or you're expressing this badly.
> You say "the accent _should_ be on the first syllable."
His desire, as I've gathered, is for us all to pronounce it "a 'the ism"
rather than "'a the ism".
My impression of such a thing would be to hear the unaccented "a" as an
article, rather than the syllable of a word, thus defeating his purpose
for doing so. Then again, we've managed to redefine the general usage
"gay" in just 40 years, and "erection" in twice that time, so perhaps he
stands a chance of getting his way.
Rob
Michael Malloy
Tempers flare easily in this territory.
I would say only that I am of the religious minority in the USA. I am
in fact a Russian Orthodox Christian, by choice, and I'm not going to
hide it. Neither will I use that faith to pressure others.
As for athiests... well, they believe in nothing.
Radical Islam, on the other hand is a threat to the whole world which
cannot be ignored. They don't like athiests any more than they like
Christian, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, etc. Once they are in the majority,
we're ALL up the creek without a paddle.
This thread really serves no purpose in the contect of SciFi and
Babylon 5.
krueg...@hotmail.com wrote:
> I am stealing this directly from a friend's messageboard. A recent
> study by the University of Minnesota seems to indicate that above and
> beyond all other distrusted minority groups, people in America distrust
> atheists the most.
>
> It might surprise you, but I find where I live to be remarkably
> intolerant of Atheists, so I'm not really surprised to hear this. I
> was a bit surprised with the recent upsurge in the hatred and distrust
> of Muslims that Atheists even beat them out. :o
>
> http://www.ur.umn.edu/FMPro?-db=releases&-lay=web&-format=umnnewsreleases/releasesdetail.html&ID=2816&-Find
Rob Perkins
> If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck...
>
> (it's a cat)
Strainer to you, John. Strainer to you.
Rob
Carl Dershem
news:7XSZf.525$Lm5...@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com:
>
> "Chris" <pel...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:pelzo63-204B85...@news.east.earthlink.net...
>
>>> > now really, no need to be so silly about all of this, i win the
>>> > thread, but you can have the strainer. ;-)
>>>
>>> But I don't WANT a strainer! I want..... to SING!
>>>
>>
>> stop! stop! there will be no singing!
>>
>> now you, guard this door!
>
> I'll stay 'ere and make sure 'e doesn't leave.
>
> <hic>
Until you (or anyone else) comes and gets us.
(But... what about the curtains?)
Wesley Struebing
<j...@otfresno.com> wrote:
>
>> Sorry, John, that was a bit facetious, but I am curious as to how you
>> arrived at that conclusion. You probably know more about the
>> denomination than I, so I ask.
>
>You want the time?
>
>Here's how to build a clock...
>
>The UMC as a denomination is, to my understanding, heatedly divided on
>social questions such as homosexuality. My understanding is that there are
>both strong conservative and liberal wings to the church and the only thing
>they can agree on is that they don't want the denomination to fracture down
>the middle. The UMC seems to constantly have small elements that are
>joining of breaking away, which raises the spectre of a total blowout.
>Wesley is, IMHO resprsentative of a portion of the churches in the UMC, but
>it doesn't represent the denomination as a whole.
>
>I was not referring to the United Methodist Church as an organization, but a
>single church within easy driving distance of my house. Here's a link to
>the church's website.
>
Ahh. I thought you were referring to the "large 'C' Church, not your
local parish.
And in regard to your statements about the f(r)actionalization of the
UMC, you are right, even that I can remember seeing/reading, but they
don't seem quite so contentious among themselves as the
Anglicans/Episcopalians, so I guess I just didn't consider them so at
each others' throats.
Carl Dershem
news:1144525413.1...@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
> As for athiests... well, they believe in nothing.
Not true. I, for believe, it's time to do something else for a while.
Kay Shapero
says...
>
> I'm not an expert on DDT, but I've read that still today there is no
> conclusive link between DDT and cancer, and that more people die from
> malaria (because of the ban on DDT), than people would die from exposure
> to DDT. Also, the alternatives to DDT may not be any less poisonous.
>
Actually it wasn't so much that DDT was directly dangerous to people, but
it was killing off important and useful insects like bees along with the
annoying ones, also lefthandedly wiping out top level avian predators by
causing them to produce such thin eggshells that the chicks didn't
survive to hatch. It wasn't too good for various other lifeforms either.
Of course in small amounts it would have been very useful - the problem
was that it was thrown at the environment in wholesale lots and
overwhelmed a lot of things we really didn't want overwhelmed.
--
Kay Shapero
reply address munged - use my first name at kayshapero dot net
filk FAQ http://www.kayshapero.net/filkfaq.htm
Vorlonagent
"Carl Dershem" <der...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:Xns979F912A5B8...@70.169.32.36...
>> Then where did all the rancor towards the film come from? Why did
>> this rancor come either overwhelmingly or exclusively from the Left?
>> Why couldn't critics of the film just say, "eww, I really do NOT want
>> to see a man whipped, tortured and curcified" and go on with life?
>>
>> The only thing that distinguishes "Passion" IS is its undeniable
>> "christian" nature.
>
> For a certain value of "christian."
>
> Many of us disliked the film intensely for many reasons.
>
> 1) It's depiction of jews was, for many, extremely and nasty. There
> were many strong jewish characters in the film that were stereotypical
> 'untermehschen' or 'Shylock' types, and were repugnant, and many feel
> that was itentional, reflecting Gibson's well known anti-semitism.
A reason for rancor to be sure, if I agreed with your analysis. As it
happens I don't. The crucifixion story does indeed have Christ ordered
crucified by Pontius Pilate at the urging of the power structure of the
jewish religion of the time. That's what Passion showed, nothing more or
less. The film did not appear to be in any way anti-semetic, nor am I aware
of any credible charges of anti-semitism against Gibson prior to the release
of the film. Anti-semitism was, in my view, merely the club used to beat
the film with.
I am, however, not particularly sensetive to the stereotypes you mention.
All I saw when I saw the movie was people. I didn't see any characters that
I considered to be prejudiced in depiction or two-dimensional. Indeed, if
anything the film was hyper-real, over the top in the tortures and
indignities it depicts as inflicted on Christ (and, yeah, Judas' suicide.
That was pretty out there too).
> 2) The film was horrendously badly made.
I thought it was over the top, but not "horrendously badly made". That's
reserved for Star Wars movies, Starship Troopers, either "D&D" movie...
The acting was good. The story following a strightforward plot at a decent
pace. The cinematography was really good. Most production values were at
or above par. This is an eye of the beholder question so a dimmer view is
certainly reasonable.
In the end, "badly made" is a reason to disdain the film not reason to heap
loud, repeated scorn on it.
> 3) Many of the core "christian" elements in the film were not so much
> christian as the sort of wobbly evangelical_Fallwellist_dominionist
> garbage that makes those who read the bible as an example of a positive
> philosophy want to barf. It was all about pain and anguish and suffering
> and payback and all that crap, which many of us consider NOT the foremost
> elements of christianity (look at the beatitudes for what we consider to
> be what the philosophy is about).
The only way Passion at all relates to or supports the religious right is
the fact that it chooses to depict a traditional crucifixion drama. It is
not "modern" or "revisionist" in any way. I'm not even sure what you mean
when you refer to "pain and anguish and suffering and payback and all that
crap." OK, I get the "pain and anguish" part. But I'm entirely stuck on
the "payback" part. The only thing you could be referring to in my mind
would be the "second coming" of Christ (a big thing among some flavors of
fundamentalist), but Passion doesn't address this to my memory.
It's a traditional account with the traditional focus, that's it.
"Traditional" should not be anathama to an open mind and accepting heart.
That's where this thread started. If the traditional-christian viewpoint is
anathama, is to be treated as always wrong, inferior and to be rejected,
there is indeed a war on christianity going on in US culture.
Passion is nothing to evoke rancor from someone whose guide to the world is
the Beatitudes. Seems to me such a someone would shrug, say Gibson missed
the boat, and move on. No nead to unsheath claws and tear the film down.
Indeed, scorn, rancor, hatred in any form are soul-corrosives to a
christian. Nobody in their right heart heaps these things on anyone or
anything, including Gibson's film. Indeed if christians do waste their time
tearing at Gibson's film, the only thing they truly illuminate is how far
they've strayed from their own spirituality and how desperately they need to
reconnect with it.
> 4) As a film, and as an example of the philosophy that supports Gibson's
> apparent (and oft-stated) mindset, it was repellent, repugnant and often
> disgusting.
>
> Personally, I MUCH prefer the character you find from what the 4 primary
> gospels agree on as Jesus to the stuff in Gibson's film. Or, to expand,
> the character Chris Moore developed in his philosophical comedy "Lamb."
I have no answer here. You give me no new data to put through the ringer
except opinion. Can you provide examples of Gibson stating his mindset?
It's so easy to quote someone out of context and it's gotten ot be a
favorite passtime in the realm of public discourse.
Matt Ion
> If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck...
>
> (it's a cat)
I thought it was a witch?
---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 0615-0, 04/08/2006
Tested on: 4/8/2006 11:45:34 PM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com
Chris
Carl Dershem <der...@cox.net> wrote:
> "Vorlonagent" <j...@otfresno.com> wrote in
> news:7XSZf.525$Lm5...@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com:
>
> >
> > "Chris" <pel...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > news:pelzo63-204B85...@news.east.earthlink.net...
> >
> >>> > now really, no need to be so silly about all of this, i win the
> >>> > thread, but you can have the strainer. ;-)
> >>>
> >>> But I don't WANT a strainer! I want..... to SING!
> >>>
> >>
> >> stop! stop! there will be no singing!
> >>
> >> now you, guard this door!
> >
> > I'll stay 'ere and make sure 'e doesn't leave.
> >
> > <hic>
>
> Until you (or anyone else) comes and gets us.
no, not anyone else, just me!
>(But... what about the curtains?)
no! not the curtains, lad, all that! <points out window> all that your
eyes can see, that'll be your kingdom, lad!
...Chris, e's not the messiah! e's a very naughty boy!
Techno Magus
> So...you would be prejudiced against the dark side of life and not
> considering every human valuable? I'm not sure I would call that a
> prejudice.
And you have every right to. That's why I pointed out the subjective
context of prejudice, as well as the prefix. Some dictionaries will of
course tell you that prejudice can be in favor of the positive and the
negative (I had to translate the word, therefore my usage might differ
from yours). There's also a term called 'positive prejudice' (for
example used in employment programs for immigrants). Then there's a
quote about public libraries:
"The rationale for community libraries lies in their essentially
different sense of social purpose. They differ from traditional
libraries in that they are proactive in their sense of social purpose.
The primary stimulus is humanitarian and its outcome is social
intervention in support of a positive prejudice."
To me... prejudice becomes meaningful when i know the issue under
judgment, not before. And it's subjective because there ought to be a
person having the pre-judice (the imprint). I do not really care for
objective values (they seem to be illusions of the subject anyway).
> Sorry, I'm still not clear on what the difference between "racial
> prejudice" and "racism" would be.
Race-ism: -ism... as in an ideology, as in a system of beliefs, as in
consisting of many different (pre/post)-judices that eventually makes
the system internally coherent (autopoietic if you like), as in a
denotation being coherently explained by other values/elements from
within the system (including racial prejudice). Racial prejudice is a
set of bricks, racism is the house.
> Well, we do have the ability to conduct studies and test theories. Facts
> are not for politicians or special interest groups to decide.
The technocratic approach will not suffice I'm afraid: the production of
knowledge is a business like any other. The scientists do not own the
facts, they are reporters as well (otherwise we would not talk about
reproducibility). What they research and what they report is still
highly a matter of choice (I do not insinuate dishonesty, but choice of
perspective). Research in acupuncture, a number of decades ago, would
have created an scientific autodafé (this by peers, not by politicians
or interest groups). Now such research is commonplace, much due to the
interest created outside the traditional scientific community.
Facts are also highly dependent on how we conduct the studies (tobacco
studies for instance). Of course facts are an issue for politicians and
interest groups... there's always a responsibility in how to interpret
and use the facts, as well as incentives to search for new particular facts.
"What the thinker thinks, the prover proves" (RAW).
> There are areas where the data is more open to interpretation than others,
> specially when dealing with complex problems, but that doesn't mean it's
> beyond our understanding.
No it isn't, neither is it said that there's only one way to understand
the issues in the first place. Preferring one perspective in matters of
complexity is perhaps no better than a political choice - as long as the
majority approves, it's considered the truth.
> Ah, but I don't think they are in conflict or competition. They rather
> complement each other. Their goal is the same--the search forbetter
> understanding. A politician's goal is quite different, however, and that
> creates a conflict.
That's the ideal i suppose? However, the reality appears to show a great
deal of debunking others perspectives. This might also be good, but when
prescriptions for action is needed, an approach(es) must be chosen, thus
the drug should be taken with caution, because the drug is always under
construction.
Vorlonagent
>>I was not referring to the United Methodist Church as an organization, but
>>a
>>single church within easy driving distance of my house. Here's a link to
>>the church's website.
>>
> Ahh. I thought you were referring to the "large 'C' Church, not your
> local parish.
I was using them as an example of a large group, but the group was "liberal
christinaity", not the UMC.
> And in regard to your statements about the f(r)actionalization of the
> UMC, you are right, even that I can remember seeing/reading, but they
> don't seem quite so contentious among themselves as the
> Anglicans/Episcopalians, so I guess I just didn't consider them so at
> each others' throats.
I guess it's in one's genes, given that methodism is an offshoot of the
anglican church.
Vorlonagent
"Matt Ion" <sou...@moltenimage.com> wrote in message
news:B42_f.9560$nf7.5184@pd7tw1no...
> Vorlonagent wrote:
>
>> If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck...
>>
>> (it's a cat)
>
> I thought it was a witch?
No that's weighing the same as a duck and it was a fair cop.
Wesley Struebing
<kaysh...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>In article <123aea7...@corp.supernews.com>, alv...@accesscom.com
>says...
>
>
>>
>> I'm not an expert on DDT, but I've read that still today there is no
>> conclusive link between DDT and cancer, and that more people die from
>> malaria (because of the ban on DDT), than people would die from exposure
>> to DDT. Also, the alternatives to DDT may not be any less poisonous.
>>
>
>Actually it wasn't so much that DDT was directly dangerous to people, but
>it was killing off important and useful insects like bees along with the
>annoying ones, also lefthandedly wiping out top level avian predators by
>causing them to produce such thin eggshells that the chicks didn't
>survive to hatch. It wasn't too good for various other lifeforms either.
>Of course in small amounts it would have been very useful - the problem
>was that it was thrown at the environment in wholesale lots and
>overwhelmed a lot of things we really didn't want overwhelmed.
Indeed, Kay. Do you remember (nah; you're not old enough...) the
spraying to prevent mosquitoes done in the '50's and '60's? They'd
come around after dark, figuring most people are in bed by then, with
these pumper trucks (looked like and pretty-much were the crop-duster
trucks with the big tanks on the back and the multi-nozzle sprayers)
and lay down a real cloud of the stuff. It was rather indiscriminate,
and then they also discovered that people with compromised lung
capacity (like me, with asthma) and people with allergies were
beginning to have problems.
It wasn't the thin eggshells that got DDT banned, nor was it
"politically motivated." Did politics finally enter into the fray?
You bet (when does politics NOT?), but was it the driving force?
Hardly. And did it affect the "science"? Not significantly
Amy Guskin
(in article <fc1_f.13850$tN3....@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>):
>
> "Carl Dershem" <der...@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:Xns979F912A5B8...@70.169.32.36...
>
>>> Then where did all the rancor towards the film come from? Why did
>>> this rancor come either overwhelmingly or exclusively from the Left?
>>> Why couldn't critics of the film just say, "eww, I really do NOT want
>>> to see a man whipped, tortured and curcified" and go on with life?
>>>
>>> The only thing that distinguishes "Passion" IS is its undeniable
>>> "christian" nature.
>>
>> For a certain value of "christian."
>>
>> Many of us disliked the film intensely for many reasons.
>>
>> 1) It's depiction of jews was, for many, extremely and nasty. There
>> were many strong jewish characters in the film that were stereotypical
>> 'untermehschen' or 'Shylock' types, and were repugnant, and many feel
>> that was itentional, reflecting Gibson's well known anti-semitism.
>
> A reason for rancor to be sure, if I agreed with your analysis. As it
> happens I don't. The crucifixion story does indeed have Christ ordered
> crucified by Pontius Pilate at the urging of the power structure of the
> jewish religion of the time. That's what Passion showed, nothing more or
> less. The film did not appear to be in any way anti-semetic, nor am I aware
> of any credible charges of anti-semitism against Gibson prior to the release
> of the film. Anti-semitism was, in my view, merely the club used to beat
> the film with.<<
John, no one was calling Gibson an anti-semite, but I can't believe you
missed the flap over this film in the Jewish community before it was
released. Jewish leaders, the Wiesenthal Center, and the ADL
(Anti-Defamation League) all had quite a lot to say about it, and it was all
over the press. Take a look at this page for some substantive commentary:
http://www.wiesenthal.com/site/apps/nl/content2.asp?c=fwLYKnN8LzH&b=312451&ct=
285287
And I draw your attention in particular to the last two paragraphs:
****************************************************************************
In response, Rabbi Hier added, "... As we have said many times, our
disagreement is not with Christian churches, nor with the Gospels. Our
disagreement is with Mel Gibson whose own personal embellishments of the
Gospels stereotype and denigrate the masses of Jews who were not followers of
Jesus, while at the same time whitewash Pontius Pilate, who crucified a
quarter of a million Jews and who was recalled to Rome by Caesar five years
later for his brutality. This and a number of other of Gibson's dramatic
improvisations could potentially imperil Jewish lives. This film will also
shape the way millions of Christians and other movie-goers will look upon
Jews for much time to come, and therefore threaten an important and beautiful
Christian-Jewish alliance that has developed over the last half-century.
We are painfully aware that the power of vivid imagery has a history of
inspiring in some people violence and hatred against the Jewish people. It is
these concerns, against the backdrop of resurgent antisemitism in Europe and
the Middle East that forces us to raise our voices.
****************************************************************************
Amy
Trish Crowther
<kaysh...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>In article <123aea7...@corp.supernews.com>, alv...@accesscom.com
>says...
>
>
>>
>> I'm not an expert on DDT, but I've read that still today there is no
>> conclusive link between DDT and cancer, and that more people die from
>> malaria (because of the ban on DDT), than people would die from exposure
>> to DDT. Also, the alternatives to DDT may not be any less poisonous.
>>
>
>Actually it wasn't so much that DDT was directly dangerous to people, but
>it was killing off important and useful insects like bees along with the
>annoying ones, also lefthandedly wiping out top level avian predators by
>causing them to produce such thin eggshells that the chicks didn't
>survive to hatch. It wasn't too good for various other lifeforms either.
>Of course in small amounts it would have been very useful - the problem
>was that it was thrown at the environment in wholesale lots and
>overwhelmed a lot of things we really didn't want overwhelmed.
If I remember rightly (and I may be wrong as I read Silent Spring -
the book that exposed the problems - 30 years ago when I was studying
high school biology) one of the really big problems with DDT was that
it became more concentrated the further up the food chain you went, as
it wasn't able to be broken down by the animals that ingested it, so
low concentrations in insects became much higher in the animals that
ate them and so on.
Trish
Kay Shapero
str...@carpedementem.org says...
> Indeed, Kay. Do you remember (nah; you're not old enough...) the
> spraying to prevent mosquitoes done in the '50's and '60's? They'd
> come around after dark, figuring most people are in bed by then, with
> these pumper trucks (looked like and pretty-much were the crop-duster
> trucks with the big tanks on the back and the multi-nozzle sprayers)
> and lay down a real cloud of the stuff. It was rather indiscriminate,
> and then they also discovered that people with compromised lung
> capacity (like me, with asthma) and people with allergies were
> beginning to have problems.
Nope - I was a city girl (Los Angeles) and they didn't do that in my
neighborhood. Not that I am even vaguely surprised. The "if some is
good, more is better" crowd have caused more havoc with theoretically
good intentions than many a villain even thought of. :(
I'll settle for being grateful they pushed through the requirement to
list all (well most - there's still the less than informative "artificial
flavors and/or colors") of the ingredients of packaged foods well before
I grew up and had a kid who was allergic to milk.
Kay Shapero
trix...@yahoo.com.au says...
> >Actually it wasn't so much that DDT was directly dangerous to people, but
> >it was killing off important and useful insects like bees along with the
> >annoying ones, also lefthandedly wiping out top level avian predators by
> >causing them to produce such thin eggshells that the chicks didn't
> >survive to hatch. It wasn't too good for various other lifeforms either.
> >Of course in small amounts it would have been very useful - the problem
> >was that it was thrown at the environment in wholesale lots and
> >overwhelmed a lot of things we really didn't want overwhelmed.
>
> If I remember rightly (and I may be wrong as I read Silent Spring -
> the book that exposed the problems - 30 years ago when I was studying
> high school biology) one of the really big problems with DDT was that
> it became more concentrated the further up the food chain you went, as
> it wasn't able to be broken down by the animals that ingested it, so
> low concentrations in insects became much higher in the animals that
> ate them and so on.
That was why the top level avians were in such trouble - the hawks ate
the insect eaters who ate the insects who'd ingested the DDT. Futhermore
it doesn't break down very well outside of animals either, so a lot of
it's still out there. However the ospreys, peregrin falcons and whatnot
seem to be coping so it may be sufficiently out of the food chain for
them to survive. What this means to the rest of us is anybody's guess.
Wesley Struebing
<j...@otfresno.com> wrote:
>
>"Wesley Struebing" <str...@carpedementem.org> wrote in message
>news:tudg32pjgk6ktqm87...@4ax.com...
>
>>>I was not referring to the United Methodist Church as an organization, but
>>>a
>>>single church within easy driving distance of my house. Here's a link to
>>>the church's website.
>>>
>> Ahh. I thought you were referring to the "large 'C' Church, not your
>> local parish.
>
>I was using them as an example of a large group, but the group was "liberal
>christinaity", not the UMC.
>
>
>> And in regard to your statements about the f(r)actionalization of the
>> UMC, you are right, even that I can remember seeing/reading, but they
>> don't seem quite so contentious among themselves as the
>> Anglicans/Episcopalians, so I guess I just didn't consider them so at
>> each others' throats.
>
>I guess it's in one's genes, given that methodism is an offshoot of the
>anglican church.
Must be! <grin>
Methuselah Jones
ravend03x of rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated make plain:
> Rob Perkins wrote:
> ...snip...
>> But, honestly, I harbor just as much distrust for *religionists* who
>> attempt to use the courts to bludgeon people about.
>
> I agree... MOST "extremists" of any kind are prone to sociopathic
> tendencies or fall back on rude behavior to drive home their
> opinions...
>
> I know this wonderful gentleman who is ultra-conservative and very
> religious but makes me qualify the previous statement by being the
> nicest guy I have ever met. You can have a pleasant debate with him
> and express an opposing point of view without either party getting hot
> under the collar.
I don't know why, but that reminded me of a guy I did my basic vocational
traning with in the Navy. He was a black guy, intelligent, well-educated,
and quite friendly. He and I had many lengthy discussions about a number
of things. One day the discussion turned to race issues, and he told me,
point blank, that he thought all the world's problems were caused by
white people, and the world would be better off if all white people were
killed. I thought he was joking, but he insisted he was serious. Very
bizarre.
--
Methuselah
"I don't want to achieve immortality through my work. I want to achieve
immortality through not dying."
-- Woody Allen
Methuselah Jones
Perkins of rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated make plain:
> Matt Ion wrote:
>> Carl Dershem wrote:
>>
>>> I could say the same of religious people, and often have. But that
>>> doesn't make atheism a religion, as so many (of the latter sort of)
>>> religious people claim.
>>
>>
>> Doesn't mean 'atheism' ISN'T a religeon for some people either.
>
> If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck,
> it's a duck.
>
> If "religion" is the duck, then "atheism" looks and walks a lot like
> many variants of it, even if it doesn't quack "God", it still quacks
> "no God", which to my mind is rather duck-billed...
>
> I could get into discussion the philosophy of philosophy
> (meta-philosophy?) but I like my metaphor a little too much today to
> sully it with exposition. :-D
>
> Rob, who prefers to follow people who have seen this duck
Hmm. The First Church of Sinclair's Duck?
--
Methuselah
"Beggars get handouts before philosophers because people have some idea
of what it's like to be blind and lame."
-- Diogenes
Methuselah Jones
Ion of rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated make plain:
> Chris wrote:
>> In article <FLQYf.221674$sa3.122312@pd7tw1no>,
>> Matt Ion <sou...@moltenimage.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Chris wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <49dc5jF...@individual.net>,
>>>> Rob Perkins <rper...@usa.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck,
>>>>>it's a duck.
>>>>>
>>>>>If "religion" is the duck, then "atheism" looks and walks a lot
>>>>>like many variants of it, even if it doesn't quack "God", it still
>>>>>quacks "no God", which to my mind is rather duck-billed...
>>>>>
>>>>>I could get into discussion the philosophy of philosophy
>>>>>(meta-philosophy?) but I like my metaphor a little too much today
>>>>>to sully it with exposition. :-D
>>>>>
>>>>>Rob, who prefers to follow people who have seen this duck
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>but if she weighs the same as a duck, then she floats, and she's a
>>>>witch! burn her! burn her!
>>>
>>>But just WHOSE duck is it? SINCLAIR'S???
>>>
>>>>...chris, claiming victory on yet another thread.
>>>
>>>Not so fast there, Sparky!
>>
>> the rule of monty python states that he who invokes python in the
>> thread first wins!
>>
>> now really, no need to be so silly about all of this, i win the
>> thread, but you can have the strainer. ;-)
>
> But I don't WANT a strainer! I want..... to SING!
I want the huge tracts of land.
--
Methuselah
"Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from
the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent
disinclination to do so."
-- Douglas Adams, "Last Chance to See"
Methuselah Jones
Guskin of rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated make plain:
>>> On Fri, 7 Apr 2006 18:17:29 -0500, David Williams wrote
> (in article <rsidnd3NJ7yUd6vZ...@comcast.com>):
>
>> "Amy Guskin" <ais...@fjordstone.com> wrote in message
>> news:0001HW.C05ACE02...@news.verizon.net...
>>>>> On Thu, 6 Apr 2006 10:34:47 -0500, David Williams wrote
>>> (in article <ssGdnd1IT836rKjZ...@comcast.com>):
>>>
>>>> I have always viewed it as a word where the accent should be on the
>>>> first syllable... Actually, saying it out loud just now, the
>>>> primary accent is on
>>>> the second syllable, with a secondary accent on the first. <<
>>>
>>> Not according to the dictionary. I've never heard it pronounced any
>>> other way than with the accent on the first syllable.
>>
>> Hence, I wrote "...should be..."
>> The fact that it isn't... <<
>
> Either I'm completely misunderstanding you, or you're expressing this
> badly. You say "the accent _should_ be on the first syllable." Well,
> it _is_ on the first syllable, so "should be" doesn't apply.
"Should" can also express that a situation which exists, is fitting or
appropriate:
"Babylon 5 *should* have that Hugo. They deserve it."
--
Methuselah
"Life is no brief candle to me. It is a sort of splendid torch which I
have got a hold of for the moment, and I want to make it burn as brightly
as possible before handing it on to future generations."
-- George Bernard Shaw
Vorlonagent
>> A reason for rancor to be sure, if I agreed with your analysis. As it
>> happens I don't. The crucifixion story does indeed have Christ ordered
>> crucified by Pontius Pilate at the urging of the power structure of the
>> jewish religion of the time. That's what Passion showed, nothing more or
>> less. The film did not appear to be in any way anti-semetic, nor am I
>> aware
>> of any credible charges of anti-semitism against Gibson prior to the
>> release
>> of the film. Anti-semitism was, in my view, merely the club used to beat
>> the film with.<<
>
> John, no one was calling Gibson an anti-semite
Carl Dershem did.
> , but I can't believe you
> missed the flap over this film in the Jewish community before it was
> released.
I didn't miss it. I didn't find the critiques credible.
> Jewish leaders, the Wiesenthal Center, and the ADL
> (Anti-Defamation League) all had quite a lot to say about it, and it was
> all
> over the press. Take a look at this page for some substantive commentary:
>
> http://www.wiesenthal.com/site/apps/nl/content2.asp?c=fwLYKnN8LzH&b=312451&ct=
> 285287
> And I draw your attention in particular to the last two paragraphs:
>
> ****************************************************************************
>
> In response, Rabbi Hier added, "... As we have said many times, our
> disagreement is not with Christian churches, nor with the Gospels. Our
> disagreement is with Mel Gibson whose own personal embellishments of the
> Gospels stereotype and denigrate the masses of Jews who were not followers
> of
> Jesus, while at the same time whitewash Pontius Pilate, who crucified a
> quarter of a million Jews and who was recalled to Rome by Caesar five
> years
> later for his brutality. This and a number of other of Gibson's dramatic
> improvisations could potentially imperil Jewish lives. This film will also
> shape the way millions of Christians and other movie-goers will look upon
> Jews for much time to come, and therefore threaten an important and
> beautiful
> Christian-Jewish alliance that has developed over the last half-century.
I disagree with Rabbi Heir. Pilate *is* a neutral figure in the crucifixion
story. Reading the gospels myself, I got a sense of Pilate reluctantly
going ahead with the crucifixion of Jesus. I assume he did so to placate
jewish religious leaders, but that's me reading into the story.
Pilate may have been a monster but he does not play that role in the
crucifixion story. To insert that into the story would detract from the
central focus, which is Christ. I don't remember Gibson giving Pilate an
especially sympathetic portrayal, nor unsympathetic either. He was a
government bureaucrat caught in a bind, he either sentenced an innocent man
to a terrible degrading death or he would have political trouble from the
religious leadership for years to come. Pilate chose to kill the innoent
man.
> We are painfully aware that the power of vivid imagery has a history of
> inspiring in some people violence and hatred against the Jewish people. It
> is
> these concerns, against the backdrop of resurgent antisemitism in Europe
> and
> the Middle East that forces us to raise our voices.
To the best of my ability to understand, the objection is to the imagery of
Christ crucified at the behest of jews, be it the religious leadership, the
crowd that chose Barabbas, whatever. Some christians, for reasons
unfathomable to me, single out jews as the crucifiers of Christ. I
personallly think it's just an excuse for people who are already
anti-simetic. This was played up in Nazi Germany, for example.
Unfortunately, it's part and parcel of the story. No way around it.
None of this explains the sheer hatred levelled at "Passion of the Christ".
It doesn't explain why people called it a "snuff film" or otherwise carried
on about it. People did and do hate Gibson's film and Gibson for making it.
Nothing...NOTHING...Gibson put on screen explains why. The big clue we have
is that criticism was amplified greatly and primarily by the political Left,
suggesting a political motive. While much play was given the jewish
concerns (jewish stereotypes, whipping up anti-semitism, Gibson and his film
branded anti-semetic, et al.), the sheer demonization (ironic, isn't it?)
that was generated suggests the jewish concerns were cover for other
motivations. One theory that fits the facts is that traditional
christianity is a target of rancor for the political Left. The tenor of
Dershem's comments, especially when it came to the religious philosophy
represented by "Passion" seem to bear this out. The man fairly sneered at
the unsophisticated (and traditional-christian) view Gibson's film took.
Matt Ion
> Carved in mystic runes upon the very living rock, the last words of Rob
> Perkins of rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated make plain:
>
>
>>Matt Ion wrote:
>>
>>>Carl Dershem wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>I could say the same of religious people, and often have. But that
>>>>doesn't make atheism a religion, as so many (of the latter sort of)
>>>>religious people claim.
>>>
>>>
>>>Doesn't mean 'atheism' ISN'T a religeon for some people either.
>>
>>If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck,
>>it's a duck.
>>
>>If "religion" is the duck, then "atheism" looks and walks a lot like
>>many variants of it, even if it doesn't quack "God", it still quacks
>>"no God", which to my mind is rather duck-billed...
>>
>>I could get into discussion the philosophy of philosophy
>>(meta-philosophy?) but I like my metaphor a little too much today to
>>sully it with exposition. :-D
>>
>>Rob, who prefers to follow people who have seen this duck
>
>
> Hmm. The First Church of Sinclair's Duck?
Better than his shoe or his gourd...
---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 0615-0, 04/08/2006
Tested on: 4/11/2006 10:23:02 AM
Matt Ion
> I disagree with Rabbi Heir. Pilate *is* a neutral figure in the crucifixion
> story. Reading the gospels myself, I got a sense of Pilate reluctantly
> going ahead with the crucifixion of Jesus. I assume he did so to placate
> jewish religious leaders, but that's me reading into the story.
That's always been EXACTLY my understanding of it. Pilate himself said
he could "find no wrong with this man (Jesus)." He tried several times
to talk the Jewish leaders and their mob into let Jesus go, up to
finally offering them the option of releasing one prisoner, per Passover
tradition: either Jesus, or Barabbas, a convicted murderer (if memory
serves). They chose Barabbas... which led to the famous scene of Pilate
washing his hands of the matter.
> Pilate may have been a monster but he does not play that role in the
> crucifixion story. To insert that into the story would detract from the
> central focus, which is Christ. I don't remember Gibson giving Pilate an
> especially sympathetic portrayal, nor unsympathetic either. He was a
> government bureaucrat caught in a bind, he either sentenced an innocent man
> to a terrible degrading death or he would have political trouble from the
> religious leadership for years to come. Pilate chose to kill the innoent
> man.
Or rather, allow him to be killed.
> To the best of my ability to understand, the objection is to the imagery of
> Christ crucified at the behest of jews, be it the religious leadership, the
> crowd that chose Barabbas, whatever. Some christians, for reasons
> unfathomable to me, single out jews as the crucifiers of Christ. I
> personallly think it's just an excuse for people who are already
> anti-simetic. This was played up in Nazi Germany, for example.
> Unfortunately, it's part and parcel of the story. No way around it.
I think it's a mistake to "blame it on the Jews". The blame rests
primarily on powerful leaders who saw their power threatened, period.
They were Jewish by ancestry only; I doubt any one of them could be
accused of actually following the faith anymore ("Power corrupts" and
all that). Sounds kinda familar, doesn't it?
Part of it too was fed by the general Jewish population, who had been
expecting this "Messiah" that they thought was to free them from Roman
rule and set them up as their own nation. When they realized that
wasn't Jesus' intent, their anger was something the religeous leaders
found a useful tool to turn them against Jesus.
So yes, all in all, it was the Jews who were central to Jesus' death...
to display it any other way would be revisionist at best. Getting upset
about the depiction is about as useful as Japanese getting upset at all
those films that show them dive-bombing Pearl Harbor.
---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 0615-1, 04/11/2006
Tested on: 4/11/2006 10:39:44 AM
Vorlonagent
>> Pilate may have been a monster but he does not play that role in the
>> crucifixion story. To insert that into the story would detract from the
>> central focus, which is Christ. I don't remember Gibson giving Pilate an
>> especially sympathetic portrayal, nor unsympathetic either. He was a
>> government bureaucrat caught in a bind, he either sentenced an innocent
>> man to a terrible degrading death or he would have political trouble from
>> the religious leadership for years to come. Pilate chose to kill the
>> innoent man.
>
> Or rather, allow him to be killed.
Pilate had to have given an order at some point. As occupied people, the
jews weren't allowed the right to execute.
Jesus was therefore killed on the Roman dime. IIRC, we have found the
records that tracked the expenses of Jesus' crucifixion. I don't believe
they outsourced.
>> To the best of my ability to understand, the objection is to the imagery
>> of Christ crucified at the behest of jews, be it the religious
>> leadership, the crowd that chose Barabbas, whatever. Some christians,
>> for reasons unfathomable to me, single out jews as the crucifiers of
>> Christ. I personallly think it's just an excuse for people who are
>> already anti-simetic. This was played up in Nazi Germany, for example.
>> Unfortunately, it's part and parcel of the story. No way around it.
>
> I think it's a mistake to "blame it on the Jews". The blame rests
> primarily on powerful leaders who saw their power threatened, period. They
> were Jewish by ancestry only; I doubt any one of them could be accused of
> actually following the faith anymore ("Power corrupts" and all that).
> Sounds kinda familar, doesn't it?
I agree. The crucifixion story is an "anywhere, anywhen" sort of story,
with Jesus as Everyman.
RE "Passing through Gethesemene".
But if you're already anti-semitic, it makes a nice hook to hang your hat
on. IMHO, the anti-semitism comes first. The Crucifixion story does not
carry any inherent capability to incite it.
That's why I'm skeptical of the anti-semitsm fears laid at the feet of
Gibson and "Passion", to say nothing of the accusations of same. Gibson
generally played it straight and when he did go over the top, he wasn't
pointed an accusing finger at jews.
> Part of it too was fed by the general Jewish population, who had been
> expecting this "Messiah" that they thought was to free them from Roman
> rule and set them up as their own nation. When they realized that wasn't
> Jesus' intent, their anger was something the religeous leaders found a
> useful tool to turn them against Jesus.
Perhaps seeing their "messiah" captured and humiliated at the hands of the
Romans rather than triumphant over them, they turned against him. I never
thought about that but it does fit. So the crowds chose Barabbas, who IIRC
was also a Zealot. They knew what they could expect from Barabbas.
> So yes, all in all, it was the Jews who were central to Jesus' death... to
> display it any other way would be revisionist at best. Getting upset
> about the depiction is about as useful as Japanese getting upset at all
> those films that show them dive-bombing Pearl Harbor.
Except there are people who really do believe that 2000 years after the
fact, modern jews still bear guilt for this death of Christ. There may be
japanese who would rather forget Pearl Harbor happened, but they aren't
going to go killing americans when they're reminded. The fear is
understandable, albeit overblown in this case.
Amy Guskin
(in article <qIH_f.69056$dW3....@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>):
>
> "Amy Guskin" <ais...@fjordstone.com> wrote in message
> news:0001HW.C05F2834...@news.verizon.net...
>
>>> A reason for rancor to be sure, if I agreed with your analysis. As it
>>> happens I don't. The crucifixion story does indeed have Christ ordered
>>> crucified by Pontius Pilate at the urging of the power structure of the
>>> jewish religion of the time. That's what Passion showed, nothing more or
>>> less. The film did not appear to be in any way anti-semetic, nor am I
>>> aware
>>> of any credible charges of anti-semitism against Gibson prior to the
>>> release
>>> of the film. Anti-semitism was, in my view, merely the club used to beat
>>> the film with.<<
>>
>> John, no one was calling Gibson an anti-semite
>
> Carl Dershem did. <<
No, no. I didn't mean "no one here." That half of the sentence belongs with
the second half of the sentence. I meant "no one in the Jewish community was
calling Gibson an anti-semite, but...(sentence continues)"
>>>> , but I can't believe you
>> missed the flap over this film in the Jewish community before it was
>> released.
>
> I didn't miss it. I didn't find the critiques credible. <<
Well, that's as may be.
>> None of this explains the sheer hatred levelled at "Passion of the Christ".
> It doesn't explain why people called it a "snuff film" or otherwise carried
> on about it. People did and do hate Gibson's film and Gibson for making it.
> Nothing...NOTHING...Gibson put on screen explains why. The big clue we have
> is that criticism was amplified greatly and primarily by the political Left,
> suggesting a political motive. While much play was given the jewish
> concerns (jewish stereotypes, whipping up anti-semitism, Gibson and his film
> branded anti-semetic, et al.), the sheer demonization (ironic, isn't it?)
> that was generated suggests the jewish concerns were cover for other
> motivations. <<
I can't get into this. I mean, first of all, I never saw the film - I refuse
to give Gibson any of my money any more - but the idea that Jewish concerns
over feelings of anti-Semitism being roused by the content of that film were
cover for some nameless other motivations really pushes my buttons. Whether
there _are_ other motivations or not, certainly the primary concern is valid
enough. Whether you found the film good, bad, or indifferent, the concerns
expressed were certainly not unfounded in the current world/political
climate. It's not like people have historically had to work that hard to
find reasons to kill Jews.
Amy
Amy Guskin
(in article <CRR_f.3387$P01.1564@pd7tw3no>):
>
> So yes, all in all, it was the Jews who were central to Jesus' death...
> to display it any other way would be revisionist at best. Getting upset
> about the depiction is about as useful as Japanese getting upset at all
> those films that show them dive-bombing Pearl Harbor.<<
Pearl Harbor - a documented historical event in a modern era - cannot be
compared to an event that took place in pre-history, and may or may not have
actually happened. If it _did_ happen, it was rewritten and rewritten and
rewritten and told to someone else who wrote it and rewrote it and rewrote it
and rewrote it, until it's very like been redacted beyond all recognition of
the actual event - again, assuming it even happened at all.
Amy
Methuselah Jones
> That's why I'm skeptical of the anti-semitsm fears laid at the feet of
> Gibson and "Passion", to say nothing of the accusations of same.
> Gibson generally played it straight and when he did go over the top,
> he wasn't pointed an accusing finger at jews.
Indeed; the scenes I found particularly over the top were the flogging, and
the trip to Golgotha; in both cases it was the Romans abusing him.
--
Methuselah
"Trying to reduce congestion by widening the highway is like trying to
address obesity by loosening your belt."
-- Drew Kodjak, NJPIRG
Raven Woman
> That was pretty out there too).
>
>
. . . Has anyone been following the news about the Gospel of Judas?
Jenn
Raven Woman
> UMC, you are right, even that I can remember seeing/reading, but they
> don't seem quite so contentious among themselves as the
> Anglicans/Episcopalians, so I guess I just didn't consider them so at
> each others' throats.
And they won't let you drink on church property. Grape juice for communion
is a sure sign of NOT being a liberal church.
I grew up in a Methodist family, went to lots of UMC churches --grandparents
Methodists on both sides -- and they were pretty conservative. No alcohol,
smoking frowned upon, black folks pretty much not socially welcome (except
the ladies working in the nursery), gay folks certainly frowned upon
(remember that lesbian UMC who just got recently defrocked?), men went in
big busloads to Promise Keepers meetings.
Yep, fairly conservative, though they didn't forbid dancing and makeup, like
many of my schoolmates' churches did.
Jenn
Andre Lieven
> On Mon, 3 Apr 2006 19:28:03 +0000 (UTC), Techno Magus <techn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> [...]
>> While I concur with the close relationship between ignorance and
>> intolerance, I do not agree on the notion of increased societal
>> stupidity and ignorance. I do think this generation is more open to
>> varieties in religion, beliefs and though than the previous one, and I
>> also think the previous generations were more tolerant than the one
>> before. Although we have historical "setbacks" (the inquisition, World
>> Wars etc.) the general trend is, in my mind, still towards more liberty
>> of though.
>
> I'd like to believe that, but I'm afraid old prejudices are transforming
> themselves, instead of being overcome. For example, racism is not as overt
> today as it was 20 or 30 years ago, but it's quite alive and well, living
> under a different name. These social diseases are not going to go away by
> themselves, and I don't see us doing all the hard work it would take to
> *really* eliminate them. I certainly don't want to dismiss the incredible
> dedication and sacrifices that allowed for women's right to vote, for
> example. We certainly did win those battles, but I fear we simply forced
> the enemy to relocate, go underground. Do we really think we won that
> "war"? For all the progress we've made, women are *still* not paid the
> same for the same work (particularly in the U.S.). How can that be?
Easy; Because it *isn't*. Read " Why Men Earn More " by Dr. Warren Farrell.
He finds that in matters of actual equal work ( Same actual job, same
qualifications, same seniority, etc., women and men get paid the same.
Which makes sense, as the LAW says that they have to be ( Equal Pay
Act of *1963* ).
Further, were it actually true that " women get paid 0.XX cents to every
$1.00 men get paid " for doing the same work and same amounts and quality
of work, well, what private firm could afford to hire men, when they could
easily cut their payroll bills by simply hiring women ?
This is a particularly valid point nowadays, with all the lower-payroll
caused outsourcing thats become a fetish in the corporate world, so to
suggest that said corporate world would have MS-ed the chance to do more
of the same on this field, is simply not even close to being credible.
Its intellectually dishonest to take the two groups, men & women,
clump ALL men together and ALL women together, and try to compare
wages recieved ( Which, I will note is NOT a measure of " pay for the
SAME work recieved, as men and women are NOT ststistically identical-
nor should they be- in either the working world, or the world At Home-
Note that far more than 90% of Stay At Home spouses are... women. ),
as if there were simply NO differences at all between the two groups,
which is beyond absurd.
As the two sexes are different, no matter how hard the WomenFirsters
try to say otherwise, it stands to good reason that men's and women's
working choices will also be different. Its noteworthy, for instance,
that of the top 25 most dangerous professions, as defined by the
US Census, men comprise well over 90% of the workers in each and
every one of them. As such, one finds that injury and death rates
from paid employment are also not 50% male/feale. Should that
" inequity " also be addressed, with laws mandating that women should
comprise 50% of all on the job fatalities ?
It is well time to bury this MYTH of the WomenFirsters, since its not
close to being true. As with many other such myths, such as the one
where women are the majority of victims of domestic violence ( Not
True, and known to be untrue for well over 20 years now ).
" I have about as much in common with the CEO of a Fortune 500
company as I do with my vat. Its not logical to say that I, as a
man, run the world based on the fact that total strangers with
similar chromosomes have excellent jobs. Yet this is exactly what
many people believe. " Scott Adams, " The Dilbert Future ".
> Because "it takes time"?
>
>> It becomes increasingly more difficult to control information, although
>> we still have institutional monopolistic aspirations in the form of mass
>> media, professionalism, educational predetermination...etc. It appears
>> to be temporary and loosening its grip eventually. Increased
>> informational entropy makes it more difficult to categorize information
>> into stereotypical though-patterns.
>
>> The Internet might prove itself valuable for future deliberation and
>> liberation. Or perhaps I'm just optimistic?
>
> We have to be optimistic, or we wouldn't make any progress. If we don't
> hope for the best, what are the chances we'll make it happen? Zero.
>
> I also agree that the Internet has made information more difficult to
> control and censor, but all information is not created equal. Do we really
> have a vote, or is it an illusion? The Internet allows just about anyone
> to say just about anything, but are we saying what needs to be said, and
> is this making a real difference?
>
> We can't be a free society by having this freedom given to us. That's
> not freedom, or the freedom that counts. We have to want it, and demand
> it. We have to be educated enough to know what this means, and I simply
> don't see this kind of educated public. Are we really making progress? If
> we define "progress" as portable cellular phones that allow us to
> communicate much easily, sure, but what are we communicating? Does the
> society we are creating allow us to communicate what's really important,
> or are we using these wonderful tools for trivial chatting? What good does
> a cell phone do, if the same society that creates cell phones keeps us
> too busy to talk about what really matters?
>
> I don't think that giving up on technology is the answer, or by
> increasing funding for education. That's too simplistic and unrealistic.
> We need technology more than ever, but we also need to be educated enough
> to use it, and I don't mean knowing how to program a VCR. What does the
> general public know about genetics, nanotechnology, or biotechnology?
> Close to nothing. To paraphrase Carl Sagan, because I don't have the exact
> quote, creating a society that depends on science and technology, when the
> public is increasingly more ignorant about this science and technology, is
> a certain recipe for disaster. That's not the future. That's right now.
Indeed, and thats why its so easy for pop media to flummox people with
simply false claims. Such as the false claim that women get paid less
money for doing the same jobs...
Andre
Charlie Edmondson
> On Fri, 7 Apr 2006 19:51:25 +0000 (UTC), Charlie Edmondson
> <edmo...@ieee.org> wrote:
>
>
>>Techno Magus wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Mox Fulder wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Not sure what that means. If we have separate restrooms for "whites"
>>>>and "blacks," for example, we are teaching children we are different.
>>>>On the other hand, if we have the same privileges and rules for
>>>>everyone, we are teaching children we are equal. That's a rather
>>>>straightforward battle. Of course, this is not enough to eradicate
>>>>racism, but it's a start.
>>>
>>>
>>>Ah, yes, I can see the confusion. I was making a distinction between
>>>prejudices and racism... prejudices can be in favor of the positive and
>>>the negative.
>>>
>>>Indeed, prejudices imply an imprint, and of course, fighting a battle
>>>against negative prejudices would mean re-imprinting or at least
>>>neutralizing an existing imprint. Although we cant' go inside anyones
>>>brain and force a re-imprint, we can make it harder for people to draw
>>>such clear cut dichotomizations that lead to predetermined values. In
>>>other words, making people demand less definite answers; or refuse to
>>>give such easy answers; or at least make people skeptical when such
>>>answers are given.
>>>
>>>Teaching children equality is always good, although somewhat vague when
>>>many denotations and connotations are combined into a system. Teaching
>>>children not to draw artificial distinctions that could lead to
>>>prejudices would lessen the pressure of re-imprinting later on.
>>>
>>>
>>>>I dunno. If it's just quantity instead of quality, it's just noise.
>>>>I'd rather see more signal.
>>>
>>>
>>>It might be noise in the short term, albeit a clear signal in the long
>>>term. Who knows?
>>>
>>>
>>>>Thing is, technology is not just some alien thing that fell from the
>>>>sky. To me, asking whether we depend too much on science and
>>>>technology is like asking whether we depend too much on reading and
>>>>writing, or the ability to think. Even prehistoric people needed
>>>>effective tools to hunt, protect themselves, and so on.
>>>
>>>
>>>What i mean is the DDT-problem. DDT was considered extremely safe (so
>>>safe that poor kids were administered DDT-baths)... until it became
>>>extremely poisonous and dangerous for society. Scientific knowledge
>>>created the notion of safety (limit values) as well as it later created
>>>the notion of danger (different limit values). One could have made the
>>>lay judgment (and contradicted what scientists said) and thought: "since
>>>DDT is so efficient in killing a variety of living organisms, it might
>>>be pretty efficient in killing people as well". Such reason would, of
>>>course, have been completely irrational then, and perhaps even been
>>>labeled ignorant or primitive.
>>>
>>>On one hand, we need further science in order to detect such disasters.
>>>On the other hand, science also create serious risks that can go
>>>undetected or remain innumerable (e.g. nuclear disasters or climate
>>>warming). This is the paradox I wanted to illuminate. We should avoid
>>>fideism in all forms when defining our reality.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Or was DDT the problem? There were also studies that seemed to indicate
>>that there was another mechanism besides DDT causing the problems with
>>eggshell development, but they didn't contribute to public hysteria
>>which caused great contributions to environmental causes! There was a
>>lot of 'science' in that decision that was biased in its conclusions,
>>but are now considered 'gospel' by the world and community at large.
>>What it really means is that millions have died to provide funds for
>>environmental organizations, and millions more shall die because panic
>>and hysteria is where they get their money from!
>
>
> Hmmmm. Where were those studies, Charles? Only ones I've heard
> of/read are unanimous in describing the effects of DDT...(or does
> Hogan give his cites?)
>
>
> --
>
> Wes Struebing
>
> I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America,
> and to the republic which it established, one nation from many peoples,
> promising liberty and justice for all.
>
>
Yes, he does, but I don't have a copy of the book (I got it through the
library...) to give you the specifics. Basically, the conclusions were
based on just two studies, both done by environmentalists, involving
measurements of shell thickness vs. amounts of DDT. Simply put, the
conclusions are not supported by the data. The purported difference was
well below the measurement uncertainty. The big thing was that, after
it was publicized by the environmental community, there were big
donations, and that allowed a lot of political action. It was one of
the first times the environmental movement got to flex a little
political power, and as we know, power corrupts!
I believe that DDT and Freon are both cases where the organized
environmental movement have placed there own politics above the safety
and wellbeing of the public. There have been a large number of post
studies in both issues basically done just to justify the earlier
hysteria...
Charlie
Vorlonagent
"Methuselah Jones" <methu...@altgeek.org> wrote in message
news:Xns97A46107C77A0me...@216.196.97.131...
> Carved in mystic runes upon the very living rock, the last words of
> Vorlonagent of rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated make plain:
>
>> That's why I'm skeptical of the anti-semitsm fears laid at the feet of
>> Gibson and "Passion", to say nothing of the accusations of same.
>> Gibson generally played it straight and when he did go over the top,
>> he wasn't pointed an accusing finger at jews.
>
> Indeed; the scenes I found particularly over the top were the flogging,
> and
> the trip to Golgotha; in both cases it was the Romans abusing him.
Myself-as well.
I would also throw the suicide of Judas because it was a very surreal moment
thrown into an otherwise real to hyper-real film. It fits but the heavy
allegory was at odds with the rest of the film.
Vorlonagent
"Raven Woman" <Hraf...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:e1b9oc$1k7e$2...@f04n12.cac.psu.edu...
>> And in regard to your statements about the f(r)actionalization of the
>> UMC, you are right, even that I can remember seeing/reading, but they
>> don't seem quite so contentious among themselves as the
>> Anglicans/Episcopalians, so I guess I just didn't consider them so at
>> each others' throats.
>
> And they won't let you drink on church property. Grape juice for
> communion
> is a sure sign of NOT being a liberal church.
My church did it as a nod to AA.
> I grew up in a Methodist family, went to lots of UMC
> churches --grandparents
> Methodists on both sides -- and they were pretty conservative. No
> alcohol,
> smoking frowned upon, black folks pretty much not socially welcome (except
> the ladies working in the nursery), gay folks certainly frowned upon
> (remember that lesbian UMC who just got recently defrocked?), men went in
> big busloads to Promise Keepers meetings.
The UMC has a prominent conservative side. No doubt.
It also has a prominent liberal side.
Carl Dershem
@f04n12.cac.psu.edu:
Yeah, but I'm waiting for the musical.
cd
--
The difference between immorality and immortality is "T". I like Earl
Grey.
Wesley Struebing
Well, in a sense, you're right, Amy, but there is evidence of
*something* like that happening, in Roman records - whether it was
Jesus/Barabbas or not, we have only word-of-mouth on that.
Vorlonagent
>>> John, no one was calling Gibson an anti-semite
>>
>> Carl Dershem did. <<
>
> No, no. I didn't mean "no one here." That half of the sentence belongs
> with
> the second half of the sentence. I meant "no one in the Jewish community
> was
> calling Gibson an anti-semite, but...(sentence continues)"
Understood.
...so jews *weren't* calling Gibson an anti-semite but other people were?
>>>>> , but I can't believe you
>>> missed the flap over this film in the Jewish community before it was
>>> released.
>>
>> I didn't miss it. I didn't find the critiques credible. <<
>
> Well, that's as may be.
The nice thing about revisiting this debate is hindsight. If Gibson's film
fueled any great groundswell of anti-semitism we'd have seen it by now.
Given the way jews get trested in most countries, I think it's entirely
reasonable they be a little leery of any film that reinacts the death of
christ as that is irrevocably linked to the whole "jews killed Christ" meme.
With the film at or nearly at 2 years since its release, has "Passion of the
Christ" lived down to the fears expressed for it?
No.
Which means all the loud, long complaints and fears, the megabytes of
opinions written and the gallons on ink used to print them, were all at best
misjudgements of the state of affairs. The movie opened, ran for a time and
closed as all movies do. As reality replaced pre-release hype, the issue
dropped from daily discourse. Most of the hate generated by the film was
directed AT the film.
I agree, which is why I say jewish fears were legitimate, though unfounded.
And proven unfounded over the time between the film's release and now.
That doesn't explain or justify the non-jewish reaction to "Passion of the
Christ".
Jews didn't call Gibson an anti-semite. People like Carl Dershem did. By
extension, I think I can make the claim that jews didn't call "Passion of
the Christ" a "snuff film", either. The rancor and hate levelled at Gibson
and his film did not start with the jewish community nor do I believe they
encouraged it. Indeed, the non-jewish hatred might well have given jews
more cause for concern than they would have otherwise had.
Someone(s) whipped a legitimate discussion topic in a full-throated furor.
Someone(s) drove it for months on end, inflicting character assassination on
Gibson and his film, before it even opened. Reasonable concern for jews
became an unreasonable attempt to shout Gibson down. Gibson had the
free-speech right to make and show his film, but someone(s) took it upon
themselves to use their own free-speech rights to try to destroy Gibson's.
Given the diversity of this country it would be erroneous to say that this
gauntlet of rancor was purely a Leftist production, but the overwhelming
majority of it was. The political Left in this country unloaded on Gibson
and his film with both barrels. It's hard for me to see the hatred levelled
at either furthered any defense of jews or any sort of reasoned debate. But
the jewish angle made a handy cover for the unreasoned debate that occurred.
And it made people like Carl Dershem, who internalized the propaganda
levelled at Gibson. If "Passion of the Christ" is why you refuse to
patronize Gibson's work, you may wish to reconsider. If for other reasons,
never mind.
Dersham gave me four reasons why the film was hated and only one was worth
any extended debate: the anti-semitism angle. I have yet to find any
grounds for taking Dershm's accusations serously.
I *did* see "Passion of the Christ". It was very intense, but left me in no
doubt that it was filmed as a devotional. Tossed into the pond of a truly
tolerant culture, the only ripples it should have left were legitimate
jewish concerns and perhaps some discission of the actual portrayal, not the
tsuami of Leftist hartred that we saw.
Techno Magus
captivating - hypnotic in a sense. I also knew straight away that I
someday have to see it again, in order to get a better opinion of it.
This thread lowered my threshold of seeing film again so I will watch it
today (Good Friday) with consideration of what's written in this thread
amongst other reasons.
The other day i saw a film about Martin Luther ("Luther" by Eric Till).
The problem I have with such films, is that they are usually too short;
it's very difficult to capture such a grand narrative in a few hours. I
think this film, among many other historical portraits, really should be
presented in a mini-series format.
The Passion of the Christ is squeezed into two hours, perhaps it's too
short as well, notwithstanding having twelve hours of suffering as it's
essence?
> Dersham gave me four reasons why the film was hated and only one was worth
> any extended debate: the anti-semitism angle. I have yet to find any
> grounds for taking Dershm's accusations serously.
A guess the 'four accusations' were opinions, not necessarily
generalized points of departure for serious deliberation? If they indeed
were, the start would already be so tightly locked into dichotomies that
the outcome would perhaps be a "throwing away all possible keys"?
LK
Trying to, but the National Geographic Special didn't seem to have
that much information... or maybe I wasn't paying that much attention.
There seemed to be not much about the content.
LK
John Duncan Yoyo
<Hraf...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Not closely but I'm in the camp where God must have put a hit out on
his son. If you believe in predestination Judas didn't have a choice
he was just the fall guy.
--
John Duncan Yoyo
------------------------------o)
Brought to you by the Binks for Senate campaign comittee.
Coruscant is far, far away from wesa on Naboo.
Craig
<der...@cox.net> wrote:
>Yeah, but I'm waiting for the musical.
I'm waiting for the rpg!
Craig