Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » SIDE-BAR: ACLU demands jail time for prayer... (Page 1)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   
Author Topic: SIDE-BAR: ACLU demands jail time for prayer...
KnightEnder
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I moved this here because I have something to say and I didn't want to cause the locking of an interesting thread by continuing something on that thread that the Mod said we should stop.

Pete questioned why I didn't speak out against Adam for calling him a liar. (I've already explained that I wasn't speaking out against Pete saying "next". Though Pete mistakenly thought I was.)

Pete, are we still talking about the Rape/Prayer analogy? If so, Pete, I consider what you said to be a gross misrepresentation of what Adam said. And I pointed out why it was. Now, I'm not drawing any conclusions on whether you were intentionally misrepresenting what he said, or whether you truly just misunerstood the analogy, but I can see why Adam would feel the way he did and say what he said. However, he was wrong to call you a liar.

I want Pete to know that he was right, technically, I should have spoken out. I didn't because I saw it as part of the ongoing feud between the two of them, which I mostly try to ignore, and because given their feud I can see why Adam would contend that Pete was intentionally misrepresenting what he said.

KE

[ May 24, 2005, 04:23 PM: Message edited by: KnightEnder ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
OpsanusTau
Member
Member # 2350

 - posted      Profile for OpsanusTau   Email OpsanusTau   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well, since I was apparently called out in that particular little muddle, too, I'll jump in and say something - which is that I have this probably awful habit of not always reading all of the posts in a thread, so I have no idea what Pete is talking about as regards being called a liar.

I was just reacting to some general conversation about a relatively widespread but (I think) pretty rude rhetorical trick.

Anything else?
[Wink]

Posts: 3791 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Drake
Member
Member # 2128

 - posted      Profile for The Drake   Email The Drake   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
When I read the liar bit, I browsed through, saw that nobody had said anything that approached it, in my opinion. I held my breath hoping that the thread wouldn't catch fire.

Then things deteriorated.

Oh well, such is life. I think complaints about thread titles are kind of silly in the first place. But I did notice that most of the ecclesiastical blogs are framing it as though the ACLU wants to jail someone just for praying.

Here's an alternate thread title:

Teacher tells student: Pray or Resign!

Posts: 7707 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Adam Masterman
Member
Member # 1142

 - posted      Profile for Adam Masterman   Email Adam Masterman   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well, since KE started it... [Wink]

I was going to let this go, which is usually the only solution to these problems, but I'll explain what I meant since this is what the thread is about.

I started on the thread by saying this:

quote:
Notwithstand the arguments about what justifies jailtime, the title of this thread is extremely misleading. There are more creative ways to get people to read one's threads than extreme hyperbole
That said, I weighed in on what I thought about the actual situation. The response to my point was this:


quote:
I think those who call this thread title misleading and hyperbole demonstrates their totalitarian mindset. A free society would demand a better reason than mere disobedience of a judge, to punish someone with jail time. That shouldn't even come up as an excuse.
O.K., so I and everyone else who think that the title was exxagerated are totalitarian. Whatever. I was more disturbed by the fact that Pete seems to have missed my point. I specifically said "notwithsatnding the argumants about what justifies jailtime" to show that I wasn't talking about the actual issue of sending teachers to prison, just the hyperbole of the title. Hoping to convey this, I posted again:

quote:
The point is, they are breaking the law, and THAT is the contention. If the ACLU thinks that prayer alone warrants jailtime, surely there must be some instance of them suing someone simply for praying. Feel free to link that story
quote:
The point has been proven ad nauseum; the ACLU is not anti-Christian, anti-religion, or anti-prayer. Is the seperation of Church and State such a difficult concept to understand?
Meanwhile, Pete shows that he obviously doesn't acknowledge the point about the hyperbole in the title:

quote:
The only time I've used hyperbole in this thread is in my remark about the ACLU betraying "everything they pretend to stand for."
Then he responds to me directly, again assuming that I am supporting incarceration for praying:

quote:
And it doesn't surprise me one bit to see the same old totalitarian-secularist arguments springing to the defense.

quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is the seperation of Church and State such a difficult concept to understand?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is separation of prayer and incarceration such a difficult concept for you to understand?

I make one more attempt to show that the issue isn't about praying, its about forcing kids to pray:

quote:
The two ARE seperate. No one is being punished for praying here. If that were the case, the STUDENTS would be the ones being punished. When consent is lacking an instance of sex, we call it rape. Your thread topic is equivalent to me finding a news article about rape prosecution and posting a thread: D.A. says sex is illegal. Duh, its not the sex part, its the forcing part. Or, in this case, its not the prayer part, ITS THE FORCING OF PRAYER. Can you at least acknowledge that distinction, instead of calling this a prosection of prayer?

Pete's response:

quote:
Ah. Now Adam compares prayer to rape, while accusing me of hyperbole. Next?
First of all, its false. To have compared prayer to rape, I would have had to say that they are similar in some way. I didn't. I said forcing someone to pray was similar to forcing someone to have sex, insofar as they are both examples of forced activities . I was very clear about this distinction. KE pointed this out eloquently.
Pete is well aware that I am religious and that I engage in prayer regularly. He put words in my mouth that he knew would be personally offensive to me, as well as make me look like an anti-religious jerk to anyone else. I called it a lie because it is one in any normal sense of the word, especially considering what he knows about me. It was also a particularly mean and personal attack that had nothing to do with the argument.

There is, of course, the theoretical possibility that Pete either misread my post or misunderstands the meaning of the word compare. In the abstract, then, I agree that one should reserve the accusation of a lie. However, Pete has yet to address the distinction. His next post defends his right to charecterize my post as a comparison of rape to prayer. Since the exact difference has been pointed out, and he still refuses to revise, I will stand by my decision to call him on his lie. I would be open, however, to arguments on this point.

For the record, I do feel guilty about this situation, both for allowing myself to be goaded, and for wasting bandwidth ( [Big Grin] ). In my defense, however, I would like to point out that I never fight with anyone else like this on this site, whereas Ev and Tom are the targets of as much vitriol from Pete as I am, as are others on occassion. Also, my inclination to just drop it is always balanced by my feeling that allowing myself to be badgered into silence solves nothing. We have a tradition here of members enforcing the rules informally (at least I thought we did). Should I or anyone avoid confronting uncivil behavior to stay on topic? I honestly don't know what everyone else thinks.
Adam

Posts: 4823 | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well, not that you need to hear my opinion again, but I do agree that uncivil behavior needs to be confronted, but done so carefully - instead of saying "so and so is completely misconstruing my point, and he KNOWS it", say "I don't believe that's what I'm saying, and I'm not sure why it is that you believe this." And then hash it out. In other circumstances, perhaps saying "I feel like you are attacking me " (or whatever) ", because of this this and this. I don't know if that's what you mean, but I'd appreciate it if we can change the tone of the debate to remove this connotation", etc. Does that make sense? The focus should be one the behavior, with a caviat always made that it's your perception of it, and not on the perpetrator. If the perpetrator won't change his/her behavior, then the moderator needs to step in.

That's my opinion.

Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Drake
Member
Member # 2128

 - posted      Profile for The Drake   Email The Drake   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I had a whole thing I was going to post, but I deleted it. This is not productive.
Posts: 7707 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
KE, thanks for taking the topic of Adam and Ev's hurt feelings to a new thread, because like you say, it was derailing my thread and threatening closure of that thread.

In response to Adam's latest accusation, I knew that Adam has contemplated a monastic life, but I certainly was not aware that Adam prays regularly, or even that Buddhists used the word "pray" to describe their worship. If Adam now tells me that he does refer to his worship as PRAYER, I'll take his word for it even though he never does me that courtesy, but he can hardly expect me to know that. My only exposure to Buddhism is the about five posts of Adam's that I responded to, and a couple of selections that my wife read me from the Tibetan Book of the Dead, which IIRC is an heretical form of Buddhism (which probably explains why my wife and I enjoyed it).

If yesterday had been the first time that Adam had made wild assumptions about what I knew or what I believed in order to justify calling me a liar, or in order to call other people liars, then I'd not have reacted that way.

Adam drew an analogy between the public prayers in the public schools, and rape. As a common dictionary will tell us, an analogy is a type of comparison. I thought that Adam was being deliberately offensive, but I did not say so, because that would be "motive reading." I merely restated the aspects of what Adam said that I found most offensive, in order to give Adam the opportunity to clarify his position. Exactly as I am doing with the ACLU.

----
A related tangent ... Sorry to derail your thread with a non-quarrel, KE; if this is too off-topic, tell me, and I'll create a new thread.

The Religious Left in this country constantly draws on a misconstrued version of Sermon on the Mount teachings to pretend that Jesus taught that *all* prayer should be private and in your closet, and you'll especially run into this argument by non-Christians (e.g. "religioustolerance.org") who are annoyed by Christian communal prayer practices. I can appreciate your annoyance. I've invited Atheist friends to my house, and I'm actually quite worried on how I'll handle things because if I skip a prayer on a meal together, my 7 year old son is going to loudly demand why we aren't having a prayer.

How would you suggest I handle it? I know that if I tell Thing One that our friends don't believe in Jesus, so we aren't going to have a prayer, that the kid's going to blurt out something like "why don't you believe in Jesus?" or something else that makes them uncomfortable. We could just take them to McDonalds, but that deprives me of the opportunity to show off what a kick ass cook I am. And I'm afraid that if I tell my friend to expect a prayer, that he might decide not to bring his kids to visit.

The only solution that I can think of is to tell my son that my friend's sons not only don't believe in Jesus, but that they don't like Scooby doo either. That would really outrage him, and I'm pretty sure that he'd forget about sharing his beliefs in God, and spend the whole afternoon proselyting the good word of Scooby Doo, which probably would not offend my friend. The trouble with that solution, is that it would be a lie -- I have no idea if my friend's sons like Scooby Doo or not.

Thing One asked us a fascinating question last week: "Is God smarter than Velma"? [Big Grin]

[ May 24, 2005, 08:16 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
In my defense, however, I would like to point out that I never fight with anyone else like this on this site,
You called Lloyd a liar just last week, Adam, and refused to apologize for it. Note I haven't seen Lloyd back here this week.
quote:
whereas Ev and Tom are the targets of as much vitriol from Pete as I am, as are others on occassion.
Adam, the first post I ever saw of yours on this forum was on a thread that I'd started, lavishly praising one-who-shall-not-be-named for "exposing" me for a dishonest fraud. My "fraud" was in referring to a "Pierce County" school district rather than Pierce - [something else] school district. My wife didn't know the complete name to her mother's school district, and that made me, in your eyes, a fraud and a liar. And you've kept this up ever sense, finding some way of attacking my integrity or accusing me of rules violations.

If you really mean this stuff about you being the innocent target of my vitriol, I'll offer you a deal: you stop mentioning me and replying to me, and I'll do the same for you. We don't like each other; we don't play well together; let's leave each other the hell alone, and ask OM to enforce the deal. Agreed?

(Why do I know the answer's going to be no ...) [Frown]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Adam Masterman
Member
Member # 1142

 - posted      Profile for Adam Masterman   Email Adam Masterman   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pete,
The Pierce county thing, it wasn't me. You have me confused with someone else. But anyway...

As for the rest, I agree.
Adam

Posts: 4823 | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Drake
Member
Member # 2128

 - posted      Profile for The Drake   Email The Drake   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
I can appreciate your annoyance. I've invited Atheist friends to my house, and I'm actually quite worried on how I'll handle things because if I skip a prayer on a meal together, my 7 year old son is going to loudly demand why we aren't having a prayer.

How would you suggest I handle it? I know that if I tell Thing One that our friends don't believe in Jesus, so we aren't going to have a prayer, that the kid's going to blurt out something like "why don't you believe in Jesus?" or something else that makes them uncomfortable. We could just take them to McDonalds, but that deprives me of the opportunity to show off what a kick ass cook I am. And I'm afraid that if I tell my friend to expect a prayer, that he might decide not to bring his kids to visit.

You know, I never thought about that. I think that you need to focus on discomfort levels, both for you and your friends.

Best case is to ask your friend, if you're close enough to have an open conversation about it.

For me, I'm not a rabid atheist, so I wouldn't really be uncomfortable with a short grace. A participatory prayer would be out, I'd be very uncomfortable with a group thing going on around me - even with religious friends who know I'm an atheist and don't expect me to participate. An extended reading should probably be eliminated on the same grounds.

Hand-holding or other such circular arrangements are way out of bounds.

Maybe you can get away with giving some non-denominational thanks? "We give thanks...." without mentioning to Whom?

Posts: 7707 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Oh, no; mealtime prayers aren't participatory, unless you count refraining from eating during the prayer a form of participation. And with some of the things I cook, that can require some serious mental discipline (sorry for bragging, but I really am a good cook).
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mike_W
Member
Member # 202

 - posted      Profile for Mike_W   Email Mike_W   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pete,
Your house, your rules. As an aetheist leaning agnostic, I'm never bothered by hosts that chose to say grace before a meal. Just don't ask me to lead it if you know my position.

Posts: 1352 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Thanks for your responses, Mike & Drake. If you're ever in Vegas, I'm pretty sure I couldn't get away with leaving Jesus off the end of a prayer, because that's just the sort of thing that Thing One would catch, and there goes the evening [Big Grin] Best I could do is ask Thing One to say the prayer himself, and then he'll focus on talking your ear off about world geography, Scooby Doo, and Stargate Infinity, in that order.

[ May 24, 2005, 09:25 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Zyne
Member
Member # 117

 - posted      Profile for Zyne   Email Zyne   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I know that if I tell Thing One that our friends don't believe in Jesus, so we aren't going to have a prayer, that the kid's going to blurt out something like "why don't you believe in Jesus?" or something else that makes them uncomfortable.
I would hope that most adults would not be offended when asked such a question by a child in that child's own home.

(I also think it's your home, so do what you want. Your dining companions can join in, or not, as they want.)

Does Thing One NOT yet know that other people believe differently, sometimes very differently, from your family?

Posts: 4003 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Oh he knows; I've explained it to him quite thoroughly that some people believe in Jesus and the Bible, but not in the Book of Mormon, and that some people believe most of the Bible but don't believe in Jesus, and that some people don't believe in the Bible but believe in God, and some people believe that there are lots of gods, and some people don't believe in God at all. He was very curious about it, and we've had several conversations.

That's just the problem -- he's extremely curious about it, and he loves sharing what he knows. These days, that's called proselytizing, and it's a mortal sin. Me, I know there's a time to share my beliefs, and a time not to. But that's more than I can expect from Thing One at seven years old. I've seen how he deals with people who haven't heard of Stargate-Infinity, or people who don't know who Fred and Velma are. I can only imagine how he'd try to educate someone who doesn't believe in Jesus [Big Grin]

The other day we were in a shop, and some lady said "oh God" as an expletive. Now we've of course seen movies where actors did this, and afterwards told Thing One that some people say that, but that we don't do that in our family. (Just so he wouldn't pick up the habit.) Well, Thing One asked her, "excuse me, did you just say Oh G.O.D.?" My wife and I rushed to try to tell him that it's OK, that she doesn't live under our rules. But Thing One firmly & politely insisted on telling her that we don't say that in our family. Fortunately she had a good sense of humor.

[ May 24, 2005, 10:27 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If I'm a host in someone's home, I'll bow my head for grace.

If I'm at a mass, I will not stand for communion.

If I attend a wedding, I'll observe a moment of silence for the bride and groom.

If I'm buying stamps at the post office, I will not swear fealty to a Christian God before they let me have any postage.

Each of these are, as far as I'm concerned, very separate cases.

And I personally would love to tell your son why I don't believe in Jesus. Then, I'm a guy who once got into a discussion with an Amish shop owner over a sign she hung above her door which read "One nation...under GOD. Liberty & Justice for Christ!" She was actually surprised that anyone might find that offensive. [Smile]

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
If I attend a wedding, I'll observe a moment of silence for the bride and groom.
Even if they are in a civil courthouse, and the judge allows the Bride and Groom to have a prayer before the ceremony, right in the courthouse? You'd observe the moment of silence?
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:

Even if they are in a civil courthouse, and the judge allows the Bride and Groom to have a prayer before the ceremony, right in the courthouse? You'd observe the moment of silence?

Absolutely. In that situation, the judge is acting as a commercial entity rather than a representative of the government, and the bride and groom have contracted to have their views reflected in the ceremony.

Were the judge to invite us all to join in prayer without first bothering to ascertain the couples' wishes, or expressly against their wishes -- or were a prayer written into the boilerplate for a Justice of the Peace -- I would be considerably less charitable. But as the devoutly religious don't make up most of the courthouse wedding demographic, this has never come up for me. [Smile] (In fact, all the secular weddings I've ever attended have been outside, and officiated either by very liberal ministers and/or Universal Life dudes; most people I know consider JP weddings to be one step up from a trailer park/shotgun combo.)

[ May 24, 2005, 11:01 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Makes sense to me, which is precisely why I'm startled that you'd say it. But purely commercial? I thought that in a JP wedding, that the judge does cite the state's authority as part of the marriage ceremony.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Zyne
Member
Member # 117

 - posted      Profile for Zyne   Email Zyne   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
If I attend a wedding, I'll observe a moment of silence for the bride and groom.
As would I.

It's simple courtesy. It's their wedding, and it should be done the way they want it to be done.

The 'strength' (for lack of a better word) of my atheism doesn't depend at all on the denial of anyone's religion. I have very little patience for those who seek to impose their opinions or beliefs on anyone, even if the ones they seek to impose happen to be my own.

Posts: 4003 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Funean
Member
Member # 2345

 - posted      Profile for Funean   Email Funean   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I thought that in a JP wedding, that the judge does cite the state's authority as part of the marriage ceremony.
So does the clergyman in a church ceremony.

I also do what is respectful during other people's religious observations. I generally will not participate in actual ritual or other practice, as I consider false participation just as disrespectful as open disdain.

I would have worn the shawl, in other words. [Smile]

Posts: 5277 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:

I thought that in a JP wedding, that the judge does cite the state's authority as part of the marriage ceremony.

Yep. The marriage itself is a service of the state, and occurs by the state's authority. The ceremony itself, however, is just a transacted performance.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
So does the clergyman in a church ceremony.
In some church ceremonies, perhaps. Not in mine; not in my sisters' marriages, my brother's marriage, nor any other LDS temple marriage that I have ever attended. And these were legal marriages as well as church marriages.

[ May 24, 2005, 11:03 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"And these were legal marriages as well as church marriages."

Does the couple still sign the marriage certificate at a later date? If so, then the actual state ceremony is the witnessed signing, and the temple ceremony is completely irrelevant.

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
IIRC, we signed it when we bought it. It's certainly not part of the ceremony, which addresses Funean's point. But after the ceremony, the officiator signs the certificate. I don't recall ever seeing the bride and groom signing anything during or after the ceremony: the family mobs them, and we all go out together. Just had my sister's wedding recently in San Diego and I can still picture it.

[ May 24, 2005, 11:17 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It's true, I suppose, that the Mormon church has so little respect for the state that it can't bring itself to acknowledge the state's interest in its temple marriages, except when it comes to whether or not homosexuals are welcome. [Wink] But surely you agree that it's tiresome to preface any comment about mainstream religion on this board with a line like "except for the Mormons, who we all know do things a little differently...."

*grin*

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I don't recall any discussion of "mainstream religions," Tom, and it's tiresome for you to lecture me every time I point out how the LDS church differs from generalizations made about religion. I'd appreciate if you'd stop that, here of all places.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm not lecturing you, Pete. I'm just pointing out that you don't actually need to pop up every time someone says something like "Christians believe God is omnipotent" with a little flag that says "Except Mormons!"

Not that I object to the little flag, mind you. I like the fact that the Mormon church has chosen to address many of the problems of classical Christianity. But when someone's clearly generalizing with an observation like "clergymen acknowledge the power of the state during the ceremony," I don't see a compelling reason for you to point out that your specific church does not -- unless, of course, that's a substantive part of your own argument, which in this case it isn't.

(As a side note: here in the Midwest, if the bride and groom do not sign the marriage certificate in the presence of a licensed official and two witnesses, the marriage is not legal. Period. Regardless of the ceremony.)

[ May 24, 2005, 11:25 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
In the last few years, federal officials have also been poking their noses into our vicarious temple baptisms, Tom. So it's not like government intrusion in LDS temple ceremonies died a century ago
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I'm just pointing out that you don't actually need to pop up every time someone says something like "Christians believe God is omnipotent" with a little flag that says "Except Mormons!"
And I don't need, or appreciate your popping up and telling me what I don't need to say about my own religion, Tom Davidson. So please stop it.

[ May 24, 2005, 11:25 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Will do. Is there a short-hand term for "every religion in the world except Mormons" that we can use to avoid this kind of digression in the future? [Smile]
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Funean
Member
Member # 2345

 - posted      Profile for Funean   Email Funean   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The traditional line I've always heard is "by the power vested in me by (some sort of God reference, depending on the church, and the state of whatever), I now pronounce you husband and wife!

Pete, isn't there a witness issue of some sort in temple weddings? If so, and I'm completely on unsure footing here, the marriage wouldn't be legal (though sanctified) at that point, and the state portion of the marriage would indeed occur when the bride and groom sign the certificate, with the officiator and witnesses present.

Posts: 5277 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yes. Witnesses also sign the wedding certificate. I'd forgotten about that legality, since the 2 witnesses are also there for ceremonies that have no legal ramifications.

quote:
Will do.
Really? Thank you. [Relaxes to DefCon 3]
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KnightEnder
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I agree with what Mike, Zyne, and Tom said about prayer in your own home. I bow my head when eating thanksgiving dinner at my, or Stacy's, families homes. But I do speak up when they insist that my boys say grace. (That just happened once, and Stacy's uncle was so sorry once I explained my position to him that I felt bad. He didn't do anything wrong, he just assumed, as most people here do, that we were Christians.)

I do resent you taking my bitch thread and derailing it into a legitimate discussion. [Wink]

KE

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KnightEnder
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm also glad to see TomD respond that way, Pete. But I too have run into the problem of speaking about Christianity and inadvertantly insulting Christians who don't act the way the Christians I'm talking about do. Shouldn't those Christian groups that don't fit the description of the Christians we are complaining about know that we aren't talking about them? Christianity is so broad and varied that it would be impossible for us to exclude (except for _____) all the Christian groups that aren't the ones we are talking about.

KE

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I too have run into the problem of speaking about Christianity and inadvertantly insulting Christians who don't act the way the Christians I'm talking about do.
Kind of like Scott did with Atheists, neh? [Wink]

Think of it this way, KE. When we label the bad behavior's Christian, or Muslim, we're not only insulting good Christians and Muslims, but we're effectively complimenting and affirming the worst Christians and Muslims. We're telling them that their bad behavior is part of their faith, and therefore *justified*.

That's why specifics are best. If you isolate the groups who are misbehaving, you don't give them the out of saying "well, I'm just behaving like a good Christian/Muslim."

That's why we use the term "Islamist" rather than Muslim to describe the terrorists and those the other bibliolatrous necrophiles that agree with them.

Know thy enemy.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KnightEnder
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well, I don't want to insult the good Christians. But I wish they would clarify who they are when they are doing the things that I rail against. It's so confusing because they all just call themselves "Christians"! And act as if 'they' are the real deal. I'm going to have to develop a database with beliefs and/or outrages categorized by denomination.

KE

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Do what I do, KE. Create some name that insults them while describing them well enough that they recognize it.

For example, someone tells me that they are from the state of Washington, I ask them -- are you from the nice part, or the ugly part? They respond, angrily -- "Spokane isn't ugly!"

My response: well, I didn't say Spokane [Wink]

See how it works?

If you need some help, just give me a list of the things that you're trying to describe, and I'll give you the term you're looking for.

With the Islamists, I look at the things they say. After 9-11, on some of the Muslim boards that I surfed, the Islamists were shouting that they were going to win inevitably, because they loved death as much as Americans loved life. So I call them "necrophiles." (what else is a dead man going to do with 70 virgins, really).

It's a tech writing term, I guess. Being able to find or coin a term that describes exactly the subset that you're what you are describing, no more, and no less. That's why I use terms like "cultural left" or the narrower "secular left" or "religious left," or for the extremists among the cultural secularists, the cultural nihilists. Such terms piss some people off, not because the terms are innacurate, but because the terms are actually accurate, and the people that they apply to are used to hiding behind fuzzier terms like "Democrats, Conservatives, Liberals, etc."

"Cultural crusaders" might be a fun one, to fling around. That one doesn't ping most LDS folks, although it pings me [Big Grin] -- but unlike the cultural nihilists, I have some sense of humor. For the economic conservatives, try Marie Antoinettes. But we can get more precise than those terms if you give me specific abuses.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Andrew Sullivan does a great grouping that nails people like me: Double Deathers: i.e. people who accept both abortion and the death penalty. (Although I'm not comfortable with either and would like to reduce the occurence of both, I accept the legality of both in the system)

You can create descriptive groups by pointing out funny seeming contradictions "Virgin Birth Believing-Abstinence-Only-Promoters." The trick is, say the full name the first time in the post:"Virgin Birth Believing-Abstinence-Only-Promoters (VBBAOPs) argue that ..." and then use the acronym "VBBAPOs" for the rest of your post.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yeah. Because making up insulting nicknames is the best part of political punditry.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1