Round 2: 'Tolerance' on American Universities???

POSTED BY: SoupCatcher
UPDATED: Wednesday, December 6, 2006 15:10
VIEWED: 8046
PAGE 3 of 6

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT PAGE

CARTOON

Friday, December 1, 2006 11:56 PM

Hey, all. I will attempt to respond to all queries directed at me by sometime tomorrow. I have fallen way behind around here because I've spent all of my time over the past three days in these two threads.

When I get a chance, (if I ever catch up around the house), I'll get back in here. In the meantime, though, sorry. I hope this thread isn't 90 posts long when I next check back.

Thanks for the patience.

FREMDFIRMA

Saturday, December 2, 2006 4:22 AM

MIKE

Quote:
Would you use that as legal justification to discriminate against them?

Huh ? I was just pointing out that the reason most non religious folks bash at christians specifically was that on average, they've been annoyed more often by that belief than any other, simply due to its size and prominence in our society, is all.

RAZZA

Quote:
I have found that a polite thanks for thier time and a statement of disinterest in their message is often enough to make them move on to the next door.

Lucky you.
I've had to resort to threats, and in a few rare cases, violence, in order to make them leave, and upon continued annoyance - followed up an extremely hostile visit to their 'place of business' to make them STOP coming here.

As far as coercion goes, the Blue Laws, many of which are still in existence, are designed to force non-christians to in essence, practice a christian belief on sunday, whether they like it or not - if i wanna go grocery shopping, buy some beer and have a BBQ on sunday, that's my business, and any LAW preventing me from doing so at the behest of someone elses religion is an intolerable assault, in my opinion.

-Frem

CARTOON

Saturday, December 2, 2006 7:20 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Part of the reason for specific hostility against christians is their own fault, a lot of em really are pushy and annoying

Hi. Well, "pushy and annoying" people should first be politely informed that you are not interested (as with telemarketers). Should they persist with further "pushy and annoying" behavior, they should be ignored. But, being hostile toward them? I have disagree there.

Unfortunately, I have known believers who act this way -- not many, though -- and none at all in the last decade or so. They're usually recently saved (or young -- under thirty), and eager to spread the good news. They don't realize that most people don't want to hear it. However, the vast majority of believers I've known over the years do not conduct themselves in this manner. Most of the believers I know (like myself) generally wait for the other person to indicate an interest of some sort before saying anything at all.

Quote:
Originally posted by Soupcatcher:
As far as my personal belief in terms of all this. I am not offended by seeing the word God on a statue. I wouldn't be offended if you placed a statue of Jesus right next to the Statue of Liberty pointing and giving the thumbs up.

Well, I didn't mean "religious" statues, but regular, civic statues (erected by the local, state or federal government) -- you know, an artillery piece, a memorial, something like that -- with some sort of inscription on it -- which may include a brief quote from scripture, or a simple mention of "God", etc.

There are actually people who get all bent out of shape about such things, and believe that this is somehow "Congress establishing a religion."

Quote:
Originally posted by Soupcatcher:
But I don't see the need for any of these. What I do believe is that anyone who needs to have their beliefs enshrined in stone and given preferential treatment by the government is probably a bit on the lame side of things.

We're in full agreement on this.

As a matter of fact, God (as indicated multitudinously throughout the Scripture -- both Old and New Testaments) frowns upon this sort of thing -- you know, the no "graven images" thing.

Quote:
Originally posted by Soupcatcher:
Well, we've been living in different neighborhoods. We got a lot of people coming door to door where I grew up trying to sell religion. It got to the point where I could pretty much guess the denomination before they opened their mouth. That's just not my style. I'm more of a, "knowing people by their fruits," kind of person. Living your life as an example and, if someone ever asks, then sharing with them. But not starting out with the hard sell. Which is what I see from the evangelical movement.

Again, we find ourselves in full agreement, as you'll have seen by now, if you've read my response to Fremdfirma, above. You can't blame the door-to-door people, though, for "caring" about you. As I said, if you don't want to hear it (and I don't want people coming to my door, either), then just politely tell them so, like I do when the telemarketers incessantly annoy me. If they insist, then they are not being good examples of Christian disciples, and you can tell them I said so.

Quote:
Originally posted by Soupcatcher:
To me, it's more like a pendulum. (snip) Think Sunday blue laws. It's just as important to have people constantly making sure there is no preference as to have people constantly making sure they can practice their own religion without fear.

Well, I don't think the Blue Laws were a good idea, myself (and my mother would smack me upside the head if she heard me say that). As I said previously, you have to obey willingly from the heart, not because you're compelled to do so (or afraid of suffering the consequences). The Bible is clear that the Lord does not accept people's "going through the motions" out of a feeling of compulsion, fear of reprisal, or for the attention

CITIZEN

Saturday, December 2, 2006 12:18 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I got into dog doo on another forum because it prohibited political and religious expression, but some of the participants couldn't grasp that "God bless America" fell into both categories. They thought I was "un-American" when I objected, and then they felt "picked on" when I pressed my point. But I would have said the same if someone had said "Allah give strength to our soldiers".

Yeah, but that's erm, different, isn't it. Yeah.

Perhaps a different tact, saying "Viva La France" for instance in responce.

I have been called anti-American simply for preffering the governmental and sociatal structure of the UK over that of the US. To some liking the country you live in, and preffering it to the USA is anti-American, because as we all know, God Blesses America, and everyone WANTS to be an American.

Quote:
Originally posted by Frendfirma:
As far as coercion goes, the Blue Laws, many of which are still in existence, are designed to force non-christians to in essence, practice a christian belief on sunday, whether they like it or not - if i wanna go grocery shopping, buy some beer and have a BBQ on sunday, that's my business, and any LAW preventing me from doing so at the behest of someone elses religion is an intolerable assault, in my opinion.

Not to mention when I was in Atlanta this September it stopped me getting beer for a party. This whole idea of buying beer being stopped is a new and somewhat scary one for me. I hear tell that once apone a time Pubs here had to close between 3 and 6 on Sundays, thank whoever that craziness has changed...

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT

Saturday, December 2, 2006 5:00 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Razza:
In my opinion, professional librarians haven't been very good at adapting to the new information age in recent times, but that is changing! As the role of the library changes, so will the perception of it's value in our society and the cradle will continue to rock.

Have ya seen Cliff Stoll's book Silicon Snake Oil?
He makes the case that schools and libraries are wasting money on computerization, buying computers at 1000's of $ each, instead of reliable, permanent, if unsexy, books and other materials that cost much less, and paying salaries for librarians and extended hours.
He makes the point brilliantly, that librarians have spent years studying how to classify data, but administrators turn their catalogs over to computer data base writers who don't know what they're doing.

and 2 research examples from my life:

1/) back when I used to search the old card catalogs, the stuff that got cross referenced . The book I picked might not have what I wanted, but some thing on the next card, that seemed related but not quite, would be exactly perfect.

2/) My favorite technique would be to get the first 3 , or sometimes even only 2, digits of the Dewey Decimal number of the book I thought I wanted. So I had to check an entire shelf, or sometimes rack, or even sometimes , aisle. Can't tell ya how many times exactly what I wanted was right next to what I thought I wanted , from the Catalog...

CARTOON

Sunday, December 3, 2006 3:12 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
With reagard to reading from the Bible out loud... there is no coursework that I know in elementary school, and very few in junior high, high school, and college where reading from ANY religious text is a viable part of the curriculum.

I didn't necessarily mean read aloud in class, but to utilize the Bible in any capacity (reading, citing passages within a report, etc.). I agree, that any reading (or other usage) should be limited to subject/assignment specifity -- unless, of course, the student is given permission to read/write about any subject they choose.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
I don't think any of the types of records you mentioned would be inclusive to mention "everyone" from the period. As such, why should they mention Jesus? To the Roman authorities, Jesus was just another guy....
...performing miracles and possibly fomenting the rebellion that they were worried about. Again, not an expert, but my understanding of the times is that there was heightened Messianic fervor, and that the outlook of some Jews was that the Messiah would deliver them from Roman rule, which the Romans were aware of.

Given that all of these things would've been local (to Judea), I doubt word would've left the region, contemporaneously. (No satellite news then. Everything was a hard copy, delivered on foot.)

Apparently, the Roman officials weren't too concerned either, as Pilate was seemingly so unconcerned about the allegations brought against Jesus by the Sanhedrian that he had to be threatened by the Sanhedrian (with an allegation of "treason" against Caesar if he allowed anyone but Caesar claim to be a "King") in order for him to grant their request for Jesus's crucifixion.

And, regarding the Sanhedrian, they certainly weren't going to record anything. They wanted Jesus out of the way as quickly and quietly as possible, as He had been exposing them as the hypocrites (and distorters of God's word) that most of them apparently were.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
[The point you keep evading, though, is the one about Mohammed. You have your religious texts, they have theirs which has the same lineage but of more certain provenance. So why pick yours and not theirs?

I haven't been evading the question, I just haven't had the time to answer it with the degree of detail it requires. Given that I've been so busy lately, I'll try to give it a brief shot here, though...

Firstly, your question seems to be saying that the historically, more-credible texts should be more believable simply because of their manuscript integrity.

Firstly, I can't comment on the manuscript integrity of the Koran, as I know absolutely nothing about it. I've never studied it. I have, however, studied the Bible in great detail (as well as its manuscript integrity), and I do know that there is no ancient text with more solid, manuscript evidence than the Bible (both Old and New Testaments).

Also, as the Koran is not from the same period, it can't probably even be classified as in the same historical era, as far as manuscripts go. Aside from that, as I said, there may be a lot of manuscript evidence for the Koran, or there may be squat. I don't know, and it really doesn't matter one way or the other, because...

Textual integrity aside, one doesn't accept the message of the Bible based on textual integrity, and how it compares to other documents (even though no other document from that period, or older, comes anywhere close to it in that respect).

You can probably direct me to thousands of webpages that emphatically declare that the current President of the U.S. is a moron. I'm sure all of those webpages are textually reliable (in that the people who professed to author them, actually did, and that their words weren't altered after-the-fact). That doesn't mean, however, that I accept and embrace the verity of their message.

I am not a Christian because of the textual integri

HKCAVALIER

Sunday, December 3, 2006 5:32 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by cartoon:
Firstly, I can't comment on the manuscript integrity of the Koran, as I know absolutely nothing about it. I've never studied it. I have, however, studied the Bible in great detail (as well as its manuscript integrity), and I do know that there is no ancient text with more solid, manuscript evidence than the Bible (both Old and New Testaments).

Come again? You know "absolutely nothing" about the Koran, and no doubt many other ancient texts, and yet you have the guts to say in the very next breath that there is no ancient text with more solid manuscript evidence than the Bible? How in blazes can you know that without studying other texts? 'Cause all your favorite Biblical scholars say so?

Cartoon, this is a real problem.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

SIGNYM

Sunday, December 3, 2006 7:11 AM

Quote:
I am not a Christian because of the textual integrity of the scriptures (although, they are reliable). I am a Christian because of the verity of the message to which the texts attest. It's a message from the God of the universe to all people -- not just the Jews (through whom He delivered His laws and plan of salvation), but to all mankind, regardless of ancestory, ethnicity, thought, word or deed.

And you know this... how? I get the feeeling that your reasoning is running in circles. You believe the Bible because it is the word of god, and you believe it's the word of god because it says so.

But that's where the Koran comes in. I strongly suggest you read some religious texts BESIDE the bible.

EDITED TO ADD: For all of your scholarly impulses, you don't believe the Bible because it is firmly founded in historical fact or because it is consistent (which BTW it isn't.) You believe in the Bible because you want to believe in the Bible. In future please don't bring up your Bible studies bc you're making the same mistake that all Xtian fundamentalists make: you try to argue "credible" evidence for your belief. But all of those arguments are irrelevant. Because, if you could PROVE your faith it wouldn't be faith, it would be fact.

--------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

CITIZEN

Sunday, December 3, 2006 1:18 PM

It's the job of the religious fanatic to not be swayed by reason

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

CARTOON

Sunday, December 3, 2006 9:23 PM

This was accidentally posted before completion. See full post below...

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT PAGE