Are you serious?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Christianity: no. The entire thrust of the New Testament is that there is no Jew or Gentile or Greek. The entire human race is invited to be the 'in crowd.'
Perhaps it's merely a matter of semantics, but once you make an in-group, you are also making an out group. Just because you want everyone to join the in-group doesn't exclude the fact that the out-group now exists

The point is, if you look at the core philosophy of most religions, none of them started to purposefully divide a population.
Yeah, I believe I understand what you're getting at, I just think it's kind of a cop-out to say, "Well we didn't mean to divide a population!" Really? You want to start a whole new theology and you expect everyone to just dive right in? No questions asked? Trying to look at the ultimate motivations of an organization in a vacuum is all well and good, but you can't divorce it from the actions and effects those motivations incur.

Look, I'm not saying it's a bad thing, but the purpose of pretty much any group is to create an us and a them. If it didn't, there would be no purpose to the group.
 
Buddhism isn't really an organized religion outside Tibet as far as I know. The Buddhists I've known never had any congregation or official gathering unless you count wi-fi cafes and yoga class.
There ARE Buddhist temples in some cities, and they do have Monks who live in them as sort of "Teachers" to people wholeheartedly interested in learning about it. However, it is NOTHING like how it was in Tibet... where the priests were basically the "haves" and everyone who wasn't a tourist was basically property. China gets a lot of crap for kicking out the Dalai Llama and ousting the priesthood from Tibet, but the system they've tried to implement there is arguably kinder and more fair than the old one.
 
Look, I'm not saying it's a bad thing, but the purpose of pretty much any group is to create an us and a them. If it didn't, there would be no purpose to the group.
That is the dumbest thing I've read today, and I read Bubble's posts in the immigration thread, as well as some Youtube comments.
 
Yeah, I believe I understand what you're getting at, I just think it's kind of a cop-out to say, "Well we didn't mean to divide a population!" Really? You want to start a whole new theology and you expect everyone to just dive right in? No questions asked? Trying to look at the ultimate motivations of an organization in a vacuum is all well and good, but you can't divorce it from the actions and effects those motivations incur.
Well, try and look at this from the perspective of a wholehearted believer. If you thought it through an came to some pretty neat conclusions, would you keep your yap shut for the sake of the public peace? Maybe if it was something like "Toast should be eaten buttered side down." you would do well to hold your silence, but when they have to do with the nature of the universe, that's not the kind of thing you just don't talk about.

Look, I'm not saying it's a bad thing, but the purpose of pretty much any group is to create an us and a them. If it didn't, there would be no purpose to the group.
See, I think the problem here is that you're seeing the grouping as the triggering element. But it rarely goes that way. It's a rare occurrence when the group actively decides that they're going to be a club now. In the example of Christianity, it started off with a pile of Jews who believed that Jesus was God. People looked at that and said "holy shit, that's not what those other Jews are saying." So Christians became a sect of Judaism, and as it went on it evolved and took on new converts, and it grew until it became recognized on it's own terms.

The same thing happens all over the place. Confucius didn't found a school of thought. He just thought. And then he talked about it, and took on students, and then those students thought and continued the work that Confucius began. Then four hundred years later, after Warring States China was warring significantly less, scholars looked at the thinkers of the era and said "those guys talk about a lot of the same shit, and it seems like it started with Confucius. We're going to call that Confucianism." And these guys who never thought of themselves as a specific group became known as Confucians.

People get shoehorned into subgroups as a matter of convenience after the fact. I'm not saying that there aren't groups who began specifically to exclude everyone else. And I'm not saying that there aren't groups who met up one day and said "let's start a club." I'm just saying that more often than not, they just did their shit, and then someone else grouped them together into a sect.
 
Well, try and look at this from the perspective of a wholehearted believer. If you thought it through an came to some pretty neat conclusions, would you keep your yap shut for the sake of the public peace?
Well no, I wouldn't expect that person to keep his yap shut. But I do think that one would understand that there are consequences once you open up, which is what I'm trying to say.

See, I think the problem here is that you're seeing the grouping as the triggering element. But it rarely goes that way. It's a rare occurrence when the group actively decides that they're going to be a club now. In the example of Christianity, it started off with a pile of Jews who believed that Jesus was God. People looked at that and said "holy shit, that's not what those other Jews are saying." So Christians became a sect of Judaism, and as it went on it evolved and took on new converts, and it grew until it became recognized on it's own terms. The same thing happens all over the place. Confucius didn't found a school of thought. He just thought. And then he talked about it, and took on students, and then those students thought and continued the work that Confucius began. Then four hundred years later, after Warring States China was warring significantly less, scholars looked at the thinkers of the era and said "those guys talk about a lot of the same shit, and it seems like it started with Confucius. We're going to call that Confucianism." And these guys who never thought of themselves as a specific group became known as Confucians. People get shoehorned into subgroups as a matter of convenience after the fact. I'm not saying that there aren't groups who began specifically to exclude everyone else. And I'm not saying that there aren't groups who met up one day and said "let's start a club." I'm just saying that more often than not, they just did their shit, and then someone else grouped them together into a sect.
Well, sure, the first guy who kind of got things off the ground perhaps wasn't intending to found a school of thought. But once he gains adherents, a group forms. That's kinda my point. A group forms around a certain belief system, and that group then acts to reinforce itself. Just because you haven't named a group, or formally started out to form a group, doesn't change the fact that a group has formed.

Let's take your Christian example. One dude breaks off of Judaism, and let's say a friend joins him in his belief of Judaism. Bam, there's a group. These two guys, while not formally intending to start a sect, are now bound by their belief separate from Judaism. They now have a vested interest in this separate belief, and while they may not try to force it onto others, they will do their best to support their own belief system, and welcome others into their fold. There is now an "us" and "them," whether they wanted it like that or not. (Note: Now, I am not trying to turn this into an exclusionary thing with regards to groups, just pointing out their are definite delineations which mark them as separate, if that makes sense.)

People aren't shoehorned into subgroups after the fact. They are LABELED into subgroups after the fact. I think maybe this is the point where our opinions on this most differs.
 
You've certainly given me something to think about. Labels have always been tricky business, and this all brings me back to an essay I was working on a while back about external and internal labeling: the labels that are attached to us by others, and the labels that we ourselves embrace. But that's slightly tangential.

All the same, I'm not sure what your stance on all of this is. You aren't suggesting that these groupings are bad, are you? I'm getting the impression you're simply suggesting that these groups take responsibility for the divisions they create?
 
You aren't suggesting that these groupings are bad, are you? I'm getting the impression you're simply suggesting that these groups take responsibility for the divisions they create?
Nope. I simply mean that groups, by their very existence, form an "us" and a "them." This is not necessarily a bad thing; it is what it is. There is a difference between division and divisiveness.
 
Nope. I simply mean that groups, by their very existence, form an "us" and a "them." This is not necessarily a bad thing; it is what it is. There is a difference between division and divisiveness.
Excellent. Then there's not much disagreement to begin with. For some reason (I guess I associated what you were saying with what Mr_Thehun was saying) I thought we were on more dramatically different footing.
 

Necronic

Staff member
Bringing the conversation back to a point where there is less agreement, let me comment again on how some cultures are different, and how we aren't always right. I heard a great piece on NPR a couple months ago about what the biggest pieces of culture shock were for new immigrants. Some were obvious (PDA), others weren't. My favorite is in the story below (I'm sure I am missing some details):

Guy moves to NYC from the middle east. He is walking through central park near sundown. He sees an old woman laying on a bench. She looks sick, he walks up to her and asks her if she was alright, and if she needed any help. She looked at him a little confused. He then asked where she lived. She said 'here, I'm homeless'. He calls 911, and says that there is a woman there and she says she doesn't have a home. The 911 operator is like 'uhm, ok?'

See, to him that is completely unheard of in his country (can't remember where it was, I think it was the middle east, but I'm not sure,) and it was completely immoral on so many levels for that to just be commonplace and accepted here.
 

Necronic

Staff member
A lot of what I heard around that meeting validates some of the views mentioned before. People were trying to get it held up as a historical site due to it having been built in the 1850s in the "Italian Renaissance Pilazzo" style, whatever that is. The commission declined the proposed status (to be honest I am a bit surprised about this, in Texas that totally would have been approved but we don't have that many old buildings). Now, the interesting part is that everyone railing against this decision isn't mad because the building is a historic landmark, they are mad because they think it's offensive to build this thing near ground zero. So they bring a case based on it being a historic landmark, then when they loose they rail because of how offensive it is to build this here.

Honestly I have a hard time believing that anybody cares for any reason other than it is a Muslim place of worship near ground zero. I don't think many people give two shits about historic landmarks or zoning restrictions, this is just a matter of using whatever tool they can to block it. Which, I mean, it's totally legal to do that. But don't call a black cat white then get mad when people don't buy your story.

Edit: Sweet, an ad for "SingleMuslim.com" .... I think I should join. Make's me think of that movie Yes Man or whatever with Jim Carey. It's funny that the ad shows nothing but women.
 
The more I think about this the more I think, how awesome is it to have a mosque near ground zero? It's part of what makes America so great, the tolerance we give to differing beliefs (or should give...).
 
Bloomberg gave a really fantastic speech on the subject today. Full text and video.

Of all our precious freedoms, the most important may be the freedom to worship as we wish. And it is a freedom that, even here in a City that is rooted in Dutch tolerance, was hard-won over many years. In the mid-1650s, the small Jewish community living in Lower Manhattan petitioned Dutch Governor Peter Stuyvesant for the right to build a synagogue – and they were turned down.

“In 1657, when Stuyvesant also prohibited Quakers from holding meetings, a group of non-Quakers in Queens signed the Flushing Remonstrance, a petition in defense of the right of Quakers and others to freely practice their religion. It was perhaps the first formal, political petition for religious freedom in the American colonies – and the organizer was thrown in jail and then banished from New Amsterdam.

“In the 1700s, even as religious freedom took hold in America, Catholics in New York were effectively prohibited from practicing their religion – and priests could be arrested. Largely as a result, the first Catholic parish in New York City was not established until the 1780’s – St. Peter’s on Barclay Street, which still stands just one block north of the World Trade Center site and one block south of the proposed mosque and community center.

“This morning, the City’s Landmark Preservation Commission unanimously voted not to extend landmark status to the building on Park Place where the mosque and community center are planned. The decision was based solely on the fact that there was little architectural significance to the building. But with or without landmark designation, there is nothing in the law that would prevent the owners from opening a mosque within the existing building. The simple fact is this building is private property, and the owners have a right to use the building as a house of worship.

“The government has no right whatsoever to deny that right – and if it were tried, the courts would almost certainly strike it down as a violation of the U.S. Constitution. Whatever you may think of the proposed mosque and community center, lost in the heat of the debate has been a basic question – should government attempt to deny private citizens the right to build a house of worship on private property based on their particular religion? That may happen in other countries, but we should never allow it to happen here. This nation was founded on the principle that the government must never choose between religions, or favor one over another.
Beautiful. For a few minutes, I was slightly less ticked off at him over the removing-term-limits thing.
 
I asked the protesting Congressmen and Senators via the Twitterverse how many jobs their protests had brought to their districts. I was immediately branded as scum and evil for even daring to question them. When I told the respondent to stop frothing and actually READ the Constitution, his only reply was "fuck off". And when I came back that no "loyal American" (as he claims to be) would tell the Constitution to "fuck off," he again proceeded to do exactly that.

There's no way through such a serious case of teh stupid.
 
J

JONJONAUG



At first I thought this was satire, but then I got hit in the face by Poe's Law.
 
C

Chibibar

I asked the protesting Congressmen and Senators via the Twitterverse how many jobs their protests had brought to their districts. I was immediately branded as scum and evil for even daring to question them. When I told the respondent to stop frothing and actually READ the Constitution, his only reply was "fuck off". And when I came back that no "loyal American" (as he claims to be) would tell the Constitution to "fuck off," he again proceeded to do exactly that.

There's no way through such a serious case of teh stupid.
Yea. They say "fuck off" the Constitution now since it suites them until someone else restrict THEIR Constitutional rights and it is all about "Hey, my rights are protect by the Constitution!!!!"

As for the Mosque...... I am VERY sadden by the fact that "teh stupid" seems to think all Muslim are created equal...

gee.... are there no extremist in Christianity? Catholic? any religion for that matter?
 

North_Ranger

Staff member


At first I thought this was satire, but then I got hit in the face by Poe's Law.
I know have this udden urge to pick up this asshole's instrument and introduce it to his face with significant kinetic force.

Gah, I miss the times when being a patriot didn't mean being a dick...
 
I got to "We got freedom of religion, I understand. But..." and turned it off. I assume it is filled with bigotry and ignorance, yes? Pass on that.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
gee.... are there no extremist in Christianity?
As a matter of fact, there are... such as the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Obama's preacher and friend for 20 years, whom he threw under the bus as soon as Wright was politically inconvenient because of his extremist views ;)
 

GasBandit

Staff member
gee.... are there no extremist in Christianity?
As a matter of fact, there are... such as the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Obama's preacher and friend for 20 years, whom he threw under the bus as soon as Wright was politically inconvenient because of his extremist views ;)[/QUOTE]
Yeah, he's the only example of extremist Christians. Dink.[/QUOTE]
Because "such as" means "the only example of which is," right? ;)
 
gee.... are there no extremist in Christianity?
As a matter of fact, there are... such as the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Obama's preacher and friend for 20 years, whom he threw under the bus as soon as Wright was politically inconvenient because of his extremist views ;)[/QUOTE]
Yeah, he's the only example of extremist Christians. Dink.[/QUOTE]
Because "such as" means "the only example of which is," right? ;)[/QUOTE]
Oh, you have more examples at the tip of your biased finger? Well, lets hear them!
 
Krisken, why is it "biased" of him to point out one group of extremists? Would you have called him biased had he chosen Westboro Baptist or the church who wants to burn Qurans or any of the numerous other nutjobs?
 

GasBandit

Staff member
gee.... are there no extremist in Christianity?
As a matter of fact, there are... such as the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Obama's preacher and friend for 20 years, whom he threw under the bus as soon as Wright was politically inconvenient because of his extremist views ;)[/QUOTE]
Yeah, he's the only example of extremist Christians. Dink.[/QUOTE]
Because "such as" means "the only example of which is," right? ;)[/QUOTE]
Oh, you have more examples at the tip of your biased finger? Well, lets hear them![/QUOTE]
Certainly! Nancy Pelosi, who strenuously insists she is a devout catholic, while pushing as hard as she can for the complete legalization of abortion. Not that I have a problem with that, but I don't claim to be a devout catholic, either.

Oh, and the entirety of Ireland, obviously.
 
There are LOTS of extremists in any religion who take and abuse the religion and it's people to gain power/achieve selfish ends. Its nothing new or a problem relegated to religion.
 
Krisken, why is it "biased" of him to point out one group of extremists? Would you have called him biased had he chosen Westboro Baptist or the church who wants to burn Qurans or any of the numerous other nutjobs?
What, it isn't biased to only point out the nutjobs connected to Democrats? I mean, really? You aren't that oblivious, Espy. His intention was obvious in this case (and was followed up with his 'oh no, dems!' post).
 
So you would have jumped on him had he only listed a group that was connected to the more conservative element? People point shit out and their personal bias plays into it, if I spent all my time pointing out "liberal" bias in threads here I'd post in 90% of threads and my fingers would fall off.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
Krisken, why is it "biased" of him to point out one group of extremists? Would you have called him biased had he chosen Westboro Baptist or the church who wants to burn Qurans or any of the numerous other nutjobs?
What, it isn't biased to only point out the nutjobs connected to Democrats? I mean, really? You aren't that oblivious, Espy. His intention was obvious in this case (and was followed up with his 'oh no, dems!' post).[/QUOTE]

The late senator Byrd, member of the KKK, an organization which claims Christian affiliation?

Is it biased of the prosecutor to let the defense handle its own side? ;)
 
It's also not uncommon to be completely unaware of it until it is pointed out at you. Sure, the guy was always a bit too preachy and get very loud and animated while doing his sermons but somehow I never realized how far he took it until my friend pointed it out to me. I grew up with it so I didn't see it.
Totally, thats how most people get into it I think.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top