The circus of tolerance

[PsionicFox]

Allow me to preface all of this by clearly stating that I am an Atheist, I have read the bible, and I have a deep respect for a number of religious people. I'm not here to bash anyone for their faith.

@Keleynal, People identifying themselves as 'Christian' still count for something like 70% of the American population. So if you wanted to, you could probably call America a Christian nation. And I have a real problem when you talk in such a way that implies only Christians share core family values. When you say 'Christian values', to what are you referring? Are there certain values held by Christians that are not accepted by common folk? Because I can't think of any 'Christian' values that aren't generally held by people of all colours and creeds and nationalities.

@Valikar, your words about how people should just accept the majority religion and go along with it is a rather terrifying thought process. Seriously. Think about that statement again. Doesn't that terrify you? That's a very slippery slope my friend. Where do we draw the line on that one? People have been blithely going along with religion for centuries now. But with the shrinking of the world, those small pockets of Atheists and Agnostics can communicate with one another. That is a wonderful and valuable thing. But you would tell them to keep their heads down and not rock the boat? Why should they be afforded less rights to express their beliefs than the religious majority? Why should they be told to keep quiet and 'go along'?

 

[dainjre]

Joof, the Calamitous accepts all people from all religions and beliefs.

 

[Keleynal]

@Keleynal, People identifying themselves as 'Christian' still count for something like 70% of the American population. So if you wanted to, you could probably call America a Christian nation. And I have a real problem when you talk in such a way that implies only Christians share core family values. When you say 'Christian values', to what are you referring? Are there certain values held by Christians that are not accepted by common folk? Because I can't think of any 'Christian' values that aren't generally held by people of all colours and creeds and nationalities.

Self identifying as a Christian and actually following through with beliefs and actions are entirely separate things. I'm willing to accept that the church in America is not as sick as I suspect it is. I sure hope not.

Core Christian values are not unique to Christianity and most, in fact, predate Christ. Most people agree on basic morals like "murder is bad," for good religious, social, and practical reasons. However, things that were part of the basic moral fabric in America are eroding. The redefinition of marriage and the family unit is a big one. Whether it's good or bad, it's going to have negative consequences on family stability. That wasn't the first salvo against marriage though. Adultery, divorce, and promiscuity lost almost all their social stigma long ago. It's now expected that people sleep together before marriage, and a very high number of marriages end in divorce. That number is no lower among professed "Christians" than the population at large.

That's the big problem. Christians have adopted the sliding morals of society rather than shining as a light and showing what a difference having a relationship with Jesus makes. Genuine Christians are out there, but what most people get is the false picture from pop culture, and who wants to join a giant collective of hypocrites?

 

[Valikar]

@Valikar, your words about how people should just accept the majority religion and go along with it is a rather terrifying thought process. Seriously. Think about that statement again. Doesn't that terrify you? That's a very slippery slope my friend. Where do we draw the line on that one? People have been blithely going along with religion for centuries now. But with the shrinking of the world, those small pockets of Atheists and Agnostics can communicate with one another. That is a wonderful and valuable thing. But you would tell them to keep their heads down and not rock the boat? Why should they be afforded less rights to express their beliefs than the religious majority? Why should they be told to keep quiet and 'go along'?

Ok first off i agree at what you are saying but i think maybe the way i have phrased my word might have been wrong.
by saying people should accept it, i mean to say how one would accept a national holiday such as thanksgiving. you don't turn round and say to people not to call it thanks giving in case it offends non-americans. just as i should not be offended by americans celebrating their national holiday either in their county or another one.
I guess i should point out i am do not really conform to a particular religion, i think that constitutes as agnostic? for something like a religous holiday or national holiday/celebration that has stemed from the countries historical national religion one should not really be offended.
its a difficult subject to discuss really because there is a thin line between being accepting in a tolerant way and then just accepting in a blindly following don't ask questions way.Im not saying people should not voice their beliefs just do it in such a way that is not to slam others. If you are a christian celebrating christmas then great. if you celebrate the spirit of christmas and not the religiousness of it or don't celebrate at all thats great too.

kind of forgotten what my point was....

respect, tolerate, understand.


and in keleynals case i think the use of "christian values" has become segregated from its translatory definition and more into a blanket phrase. this can depend on the person saying it however. similarily with OMG, one might say it alot and use it with out actually meaning, "oh, my God. what is this marvel?" or whatever.

hopefully this all makes sense and does not come off with me sounding like i am shouting people down or being pedantic.

 

[Keleynal]

hopefully this all makes sense and does not come off with me sounding like i am shouting people down or being pedantic.

This is the rant forum, so feel free to shout people down and be pedantic.

 

[Euchale]

@Keleynal can you please explain what exactly are "Christian Values"?
6 things come to my mind:
A. Things as they are written in the Bible
B. Things as they are written in the new Testament because the old testament is stupid unless it can prove my point right, in which case I say everything except this one part is wrong in the old testament.
C. Things as they are being told by your local preacher
D. Things as they are being told by the pope
E. The basic social rules that would have risen out of pure necessity, with or without religion
F. Something else?

ediths says: I failed to count -.-

 

[Keleynal]

@Keleynal can you please explain what exactly are "Christian Values"?
6 things come to my mind:
A. Things as they are written in the Bible
B. Things as they are written in the new Testament because the old testament is stupid unless it can prove my point right, in which case I say everything except this one part is wrong in the old testament.
C. Things as they are being told by your local preacher
D. Things as they are being told by the pope
E. The basic social rules that would have risen out of pure necessity, with or without religion
F. Something else?

ediths says: I failed to count -.-

Call them Judeo-Christian values, or common law, or just common sense, if you like. I argue that they originated with a higher power. If you believe they came from elsewhere, that's fine by me for purposes of this discussion. I simply meant the basic moral code with which most people seem to agree or that most modern legal codes are based on in some form or other. The Ten Commandments, if you want a religious example. Hammarabi's Code, if you prefer a more secular (or at least pagan) one.

Also at play in this situation is the disrespect that Americans have for their government. Even more than loss of values, I think that could be more at the root of this. People have no pride in their government institutions, so they erect things like a pole made of beer cans in their capital's foyer. I would have a lot less to say about this if more care was put into it that just putting a mound of shredded cardboard on an office chair.

 

[Baldoraxx]

RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWR.

 

[Nadrik]

But what is wrong with people? Why can't people see something that's not 100% in line with their beliefs and just say "Good for them" or "That's interesting." Instead, they feel the need to try to cheapen or downplay others' beliefs by putting ridiculous, meaningless things beside ones that people actually care about.

But isn't that exactly what you're doing? Who's to say people don't actually care about those displays? Why is the Christian display more valid than any of the others? In what way is Christian belief more genuine than anything else? What if I believe with all my heart that the world was created by invisible purple elephants, and place a giant purple penis statue next to the nativity in honor of the giant purple elephants penis than spat out the world? What would make a bunch of homeless looking people sitting in a barn more acceptable?

A cross is objectively just as ridiculous and meaningless as my giant purple penis. It's a symbol based entirely on a mythos, which can neither be proven or disproven. The validity is equal. What people take issue with is that when they find things like this silly, it reminds them of just how silly their own belief is. Well tough shit.

 

[Keleynal]

But isn't that exactly what you're doing? Who's to say people don't actually care about those displays? Why is the Christian display more valid than any of the others? In what way is Christian belief more genuine than anything else? What if I believe with all my heart that the world was created by invisible purple elephants, and place a giant purple penis statue next to the nativity in honor of the giant purple elephants penis than spat out the world? What would make a bunch of homeless looking people sitting in a barn more acceptable?

A cross is objectively just as ridiculous and meaningless as my giant purple penis. It's a symbol based entirely on a mythos, which can neither be proven or disproven. The validity is equal. What people take issue with is that when they find things like this silly, it reminds them of just how silly their own belief is. Well tough shit.

That argument might hold up, if this was about whether you actually believe in what the displays represent or not. I don't think it matters for purposes of this discussion. It doesn't bother me if the Spaghetti people want a display. What I find ridiculous is that the sole reason they did it is because the Christian imagery was there and they felt threatened by it. It's invalidity doesn't lie in the fiction of the spaghetti monster, it lies in the spite and insincerity they felt when they put it there. It also looks like crap. No effort was put into it or the beer can pole at all. They claim to be doing it to keep the state neutral, but where is their civic pride? Nowhere if they are willing to put shoddy stuff like that in the Capitol building.

I also argue that the Christian display is more valid since most of the constituents there identify with it than the others. If this was in Korea, a Buddha statue would make more sense, but this is in the Bible Belt and the vast majority identify as Christians. How does the spaghetti monster and beer pole represent the community? Or is it just a small group trying to get a headline?

 

[Crake]

That argument might hold up, if this was about whether you actually believe in what the displays represent or not. I don't think it matters for purposes of this discussion. It doesn't bother me if the Spaghetti people want a display. What I find ridiculous is that the sole reason they did it is because the Christian imagery was there and they felt threatened by it. It's invalidity doesn't lie in the fiction of the spaghetti monster, it lies in the spite and insincerity they felt when they put it there. It also looks like crap. No effort was put into it or the beer can pole at all. They claim to be doing it to keep the state neutral, but where is their civic pride? Nowhere if they are willing to put shoddy stuff like that in the Capitol building.

I also argue that the Christian display is more valid since most of the constituents there identify with it than the others. If this was in Korea, a Buddha statue would make more sense, but this is in the Bible Belt and the vast majority identify as Christians. How does the spaghetti monster and beer pole represent the community? Or is it just a small group trying to get a headline?

Well I would argue against this a bit. Pastafarianism is a small subset of the absurdist religions that also include things like discordianism and the church of bob (I consider myself a discordian). One of the main principles of these belief systems is silly displays can be considered a 'sacred' act. To that point your argument becomes whether their philosophical act of silliness is more or less meaningful then the religious act of erecting the nativity.

Where do we draw the line? That is exactly the point. This discussion is the reason they did these things. They want us to talk about it. To that end, regardless of whether their displays remain, their act of sacred silliness accomplished it's goal.

Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using Tapatalk

 

[Zakis]

Well I would argue against this a bit. Pastafarianism is a small subset of the absurdist religions that also include things like discordianism and the church of bob (I consider myself a discordian). One of the main principles of these belief systems is silly displays can be considered a 'sacred' act. To that point your argument becomes whether their philosophical act of silliness is more or less meaningful then the religious act of erecting the nativity.

Where do we draw the line? That is exactly the point. This discussion is the reason they did these things. They want us to talk about it. To that end, regardless of whether their displays remain, their act of sacred silliness accomplished it's goal.

Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using Tapatalk

I just worship Talos, makes things easier. SKYRIM BELONGS TO THE NORDS!

 

[Euchale]

I just worship Talos, makes things easier. SKYRIM BELONGS TO THE NORDS!

And to the ponies

Spoiler

 

[Nadrik]

It doesn't bother me if the Spaghetti people want a display. What I find ridiculous is that the sole reason they did it is because the Christian imagery was there and they felt threatened by it.

So? All people who aren't Christian should be threatened by Christianity, especially public displays of it being placed in publicly owned and government buildings. It implies sponsorship, and is unconstitutional. If standing up for your constitutional rights is a bad thing, nobody informed me. This is just another example or the persecution complex found in SO MANY Christians.

"Their displays of their own religion are impeding my rights!"
"How so?"
"It's stopping me from oppressing them! It's not Christian! It shouldn't be displayed!"

It's invalidity doesn't lie in the fiction of the spaghetti monster, it lies in the spite and insincerity they felt when they put it there. It also looks like crap. No effort was put into it or the beer can pole at all. They claim to be doing it to keep the state neutral, but where is their civic pride? Nowhere if they are willing to put shoddy stuff like that in the Capitol building.

I'm pretty damn sure they were very sincere in their effort to prevent Christians from having yet another publicly owned building all to themselves. Whether it looks like crap or took little effort is irrelevant. How much effort does it take to nail 2 boards together in a perpendicular manner? How much effort does it require to purchase plastic homeless people?

And their civic pride lies precisely in their attempts at keeping the government neutral. And in this day that's one of the most noble things a person can do. As opposed to Christians who are trying to force out everything but Christianity. To even imply that what they're doing is a bad thing is absolutely insane. You're effectively arguing for the tyranny of the majority. You even go on to say as much here:

I also argue that the Christian display is more valid since most of the constituents there identify with it than the others.

As if that matters even a little bit.

If this was in Korea, a Buddha statue would make more sense, but this is in the Bible Belt and the vast majority identify as Christians. How does the spaghetti monster and beer pole represent the community? Or is it just a small group trying to get a headline?

But this is the United State of America, where all religions are to be given equal footing, and none are to be sponsored by the government. A religion can have a single member, and in this country it deserves just as much footing as Christianity, regardless of what Christians might think. You may think it's silly, but a shitload of people think the exact same way about Christianity.

The fact that the display is there at all says it represents the community. Attempting to discredit these people standing up for their rights by saying they're "trying to get a headline" is almost sickening. Freedom for all, as long as they're white christians.

 

[Baldoraxx]

I miss my facepalm on some of these

 

[Keleynal]

I'm not sure how having a nativity scene somehow means that the government sponsors that religion. Or how having it somehow makes Christianity "own" the building.

You seem to think that acknowledging Christian heritage or belief is tyranny of the majority. I think it's just an expression of the culture. Like it or not, a lot of this country's history is steeped in Christianity and a large number of citizens still ascribe to those beliefs and/or morals. Should we deny that or pretend it's not part of our culture to avoid offending some one that may disagree? I don't think so. I understand the desire to make sure that government never establishes or outlaws religion in this country, but how much freedom of expression do we have to give up to ensure that? Can't people see a nativity and take it for what it's worth (which in your view is nothing)? Don't be so threatened by perpendicular planks and homeless people.

I still maintain that there should be aesthetic standards when displaying things in important public buildings. The beer pole and the office chair look like crap. It's the real life version of trolling.

 

[PsionicFox]

I'm not sure how having a nativity scene somehow means that the government sponsors that religion. Or how having it somehow makes Christianity "own" the building.

Because its public property. Its not a private residence or building. Its paid for by taxpayers. In other words, the entire community. And the Nativity scene being placed on display on public property is a tacit endorsement from local government of a particular religion. It does not demonstrate a separation of Church and State.

Lets imagine for a second that the nativity scene is poorly constructed. Its made from stick figures and ice cream sticks with faces drawn on. It now adheres to the same quality standards that you comment that the others possess. Do you have a problem now? Each display is now as slapped together as each other. How do you respond?

 

[Ultra CHEZ]

After reading the replies, I'd say both sides are right. For all intents and purposes, there's technically nothing wrong with the displays of the other religions. Freedom of religion protects them no matter how obscure their belief system is. As such the quality of display, earnestness of the adherents, etc. doesn't matter and they should be able to have a display. However, what most of those groups did is, for lack of a better expression, kind of a dick move. I think it's pretty obvious they did it to sort of belittle the Christians. Again, it doesn't matter, and they should be able to have a display; but the mean-spiritedness leaves a sour taste in my mouth.

Sent from my SCH-I435 using Tapatalk

 

[Crake]

After reading the replies, I'd say both sides are right. For all intents and purposes, there's technically nothing wrong with the displays of the other religions. Freedom of religion protects them no matter how obscure their belief system is. As such the quality of display, earnestness of the adherents, etc. doesn't matter and they should be able to have a display. However, what most of those groups did is, for lack of a better expression, kind of a dick move. I think it's pretty obvious they did it to sort of belittle the Christians. Again, it doesn't matter, and they should be able to have a display; but the mean-spiritedness leaves a sour taste in my mouth.

Sent from my SCH-I435 using Tapatalk

Well again, I don't think it was mean spirited, I think they were making a legitimate point. The fact that we are having a debate about this means that there are people in agreement with the point they were trying to make, otherwise we'd all be shaking our heads and this wouldn't be in the 'rant' section. There is a real issue here to some people and they figured out a creative way to be heard. If they wanted to belittle christians they would just go around defacing nativities, not creating a political statement.

 

[Ultra CHEZ]

Well again, I don't think it was mean spirited, I think they were making a legitimate point. The fact that we are having a debate about this means that there are people in agreement with the point they were trying to make, otherwise we'd all be shaking our heads and this wouldn't be in the 'rant' section. There is a real issue here to some people and they figured out a creative way to be heard. If they wanted to belittle christians they would just go around defacing nativities, not creating a political statement.

Maybe mean-spirited was the wrong word. The atheists seemed sincere, but I definitely think the Pastafarians and Festivus people were joking. It seems like they thought something like "Oh boy here we go again with this tolerance stuff." As such they were belittling the issue itself. So perhaps atheists should be concerned as well as Christians, because equality and religion are serious topics.

Sent from my SCH-I435 using Tapatalk