(05-29-2009 08:08 AM)emmiesix Wrote:  

(05-29-2009 01:11 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I've been out, not ignoring you. I seem to have stepped on a whole nest of your hot buttons. In some ways your response brings a smile to my face. i will attempt to respond to your statements in the order presented.

1. My "false martydom" and i "don't have the market cornered" on religious intolerance. You seem to have somehow made the assumption that i was complaining as a representative of the Religious right or Christianity, when in fact i making an observation as an outsider. While a titular Christian, I have not set foot in a church other than for weddings or funerals since 1989.

2. I am glad you confirm that "Religious Right" is said with a sneer. I was hoping it wasn't just my imagination. Now I have the testimony of a self-described liberal-commie that it is so.

Although you don't bring it up, I think the decline of respect for Christianity and the rise of disrespect for the religious right started with Roe v. Wade. You referred to the RR as ignorant, judgemental (!) and hypocritical - usually these words come up as part of the abortion debate.

3. Zoroastrians. I have always understood this religion to be dwindling because they do not allow conversions. My limited knowledge of their faith leads me to believe they make a lot of sense.

4. Proof of dwindling. Well i don't have much other than what you provided right after your question. I guess i could find some, but I really don't see the need. I don't know why immigration would bring the percentage of christians down, considering how much of it comes from mexico and other predominantly christian countries. But I have heard/read many times that most christian denominations are shrinking, that other religions are gaining. That is my feeling.

5. 300 years. I guess we will each have to project what we think will happen, since the odds of either of us being around then is very low. But I think Christianity will be a minor religion by then, in the world certainly, in the USofA (if it still exists), probably. i don't think rationality will be the cause, unless you are confusing rationality with atheism. I think Islam will dominate it, with the help of atheism and apathy. Bleak, I know. JMHO.

6. Bill O'Reilly. I guess it depends on your definition of "fan". I watch his show on an irregular basis, I generaly enjoy it when i do, but i do not agree with all his positions and I don't like all he says, and sometimes i don't like the way he says it. But overall, not bad. I am guessing you are equating Bill O'Reilly "fans" with the ignorant, judgemental (!), hypocritical subsets you mentioned? Or am I responding to a stereotyping with a stereotyping?

Emmie, I generally enjoy your posts. You ask good questions and give some different viewpoints. Thanks for that. As i said, i think I hit a hot button or two. I have tried to respond to your statements about my statements reasonably and rationally. And friendly.

hmm, numbering is easier than quote insertion... let's see:

1) Your tone in the original post comes off as offended & threatened, sorry if I jumped to the conclusion that you were defending your own culture or faith. If not, I'm honestly not sure why you care? Do the number of Christians mean anything to you beyond an academic question?

2) "liberal commie" was tongue-in-cheek. I'm socially liberal, economically agnostic. "Liberals" is often used on talk radio and fox news type media in a similar fashion to "religious right". Do you take offense at the sneering tone when the former is used in those places? I was trying to point out the narrowness of the term. I rarely use it myself.

3) My point was that religions come and go, but religious sentiment generally doesn't. Unless you have a good argument for having the state particularly promote christianity or any other religion, I see no point in having religiously based federal holidays (though, as civil liberties offenses go, this is about as low on the list as you can get).

4-5) Your concerns about other religions gaining share is certainly legitimate, but I just really doubt the numbers of agnostics/athiests will rise. Biologically speaking, that number seems to be constant. 'Rationality' is usually the argument for people losing religious inclinations. If the world really goes to hell in a handbasket as many of you seem to predict, I would expect religious feeling to rise, as they have in almost every major disaster/depression in history. I have a hard time believing that islam can beat out christianity but that might be my personal bias. We could use a Rice religious studies major here!

6) Ah, Bill. I used to watch him back when I was a young conservative. I can actually credit him with helping me decide I wanted no part in "parties" and to always register independent. Not because he is one (hardly, except for token issues), but because I couldn't believe his ability to ignore facts and arguments against something he'd already decided was true, based on political parties. Plus, he's a jerk. :) But his whole manufactured "war on christmas" thing just takes the cake.

I suppose it is a "hot button" for me in that my opinion is fairly strong, and I have thought about it a lot for personal reasons. People find me to be a bit "challenging" in these situations... if my post was a bit of a polemic, I apologize.

Ah, civil discourse!! How welcome. I have no idea how to separate quotes and isolate multiple quotes, so i rely on the numbering system to make replies/points in these discussions. So, using your numbering system, based on mine ( when wil it ever end?)....

1. I was making a point about the lessening of importance and influence of christian institutions in the USofA, and the increasing disrespect for anything smacking of a religious viewpoint. Perhaps this is due to my longer sight lines - I was around in the 50's, as Owl 69/70/75 mentioned, maybe the changes are more apparent to an older person. In truth, in the 50's, I was that person you spoke of who went to church more for other reasons than purely religious ones. In the 60's i was an atheist, in the 70's a deacon. Basically, I was commenting on what i observe in the battles between Christians and the opponents, whoever they may be. Why do I care? I guess for the same reasons I think you care - this is part of my culture, my country, and part of the political landscape in which I live.

2. I knew liberal-commie was tongue in cheek, we all use the streotypes that others have of us in this way. That is why I sometimes refer to myself as a heartless greedy conservative who enjoys killing baby seals and watching people starve, or sometimes as a member of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy, Local 4077. I used your TIC characterization as a TIC endorsement. Do we have a TIC emoticon? Sure would be handy.

3. which takes us back to a place we were at previously, the possibility of Christmas eventually disappearing as a national holiday. Once again, i am not an offended party, just making an observation that I think this is the direction of a far away future. As more and more people agree with your point that there is no sense in having religiously based Federal holidays, Christmas will become more endangered (as a Federal holiday), eventually to the point where it is not one anymore, just another entry on a list of various religious holidays for various religions that employees may pick from for their personal holidays.

4-5 this is where I am going to get in trouble. I see a rise in apathy among nominal Christians, like myself. I also see a rise in hostility toward Christianity from Americans of certain political beliefs. I see all this, and the movement to sunder all ties between christianity and politics, as further weaking an already declining position. OTOH, I see islam, which does not play by our rules, using any and all means to further their inroads into Christian countries, and once in power, restricting and repressing other religions. I just do not think love and olive branches can hold back militant Islam, nor will Christianity survive under sharia law in any meaningful way. Christianity is competing with a limited arsenal, plus it is losing backing from the people as I mentioned above. I just do not see a separate Christion Church and a separate Democracy triumphing over over a unified religious-political force like Islam. It will take a long time, but someday your descendants and mine will be living under sharia law and liking it, as it will be all they ever knew. It rends my heart to think of that world, but i am doing all I can to prevent it, and I am in the minority, and a scorned minority at that. Islam is turning our own Christian values against us. This is an opinion, so nobody ask for links or studies. I sure i could produce some, and people opposing me could produce some, and all that time would be wasted. I don't intend to start.

6. Bill. Interesting that you used to be a young conservative. In the 60's, I was a wild-eyed liberal-commie. Capitalists were exploiters, the US was evil and fighting an evil war for the benefit of rich white men, yada, yada, yada. Apathy was the only thing keeping me from becoming or joining Bill Ayers. If I had known that i would become a revered member of the academic community, maybe I would have blown up an armored car for peace. But some things stopped me - primarily the birth of a son. I took my family responsibilities seriously - perhaps a remnant of my Christian values - and went to work, and progressed in my career, and then had an opportunity to become first management, then ownership, and eventually I reached a point where I was completely converted (well, almost) by actual life experiences from radicalism to conservatism. Looks like we have/had lives that moved in reverse directions.

But back to Bill. yeah the "war on christmas" is overblown, but at the very bottom of it is a shred of truth. I don't care a lot, but I am sorry to see the celebration of christmas more and more circumscribed (NO! NOT HERE!!!) and less and less revered. I guess it is that 50's contrast. Like i said, I don't agree with him on a lot of things, but he is not 100% wrong any more than he is 100% right. Sometimes i watch Lou Dobbs, too. I do find the show entertaining, but only if something better is not on. Sometimes i record it, and only watch/listen to what interests me - maybe 15 minutes, beginning to end.

We all have our hot buttons. if we didn't, who would come on the QUAD and express an opinion> In truth, this sort of discussion is where I refine my opinions and even once in a while change them.

Enjoyed it.

i consider religion to be a very private matter, and in some ways i think that's one of the things that has changed in this country. this may engender more debate, but i'm troubled by the way that part of the standard for measuring a good conservative has become to measure whether someone sufficiently wears religion on his sleeve.

i think that anti-choice activity (blocking access to clinics, bombings, and the like) and anti-gay campaigns (think well back to anita bryant's rallies which were more anti gay versus anti gay rights which weren't even really on the table yet in this country) are a significant reason for why the religious right (or better said, at least part of it) has gotten a bad name in some circles. religion isn't private anymore and more importantly there are some who would use it like a sword and do harm to others in the process.

i can honestly say that i feel that the sneer you hear from people talking about the religious right seems to be a response to the sneering and bullying that has been increasingly coming over the last couple of decades from some in those quarters. and, like emmie, i don't hear it in ways that are directed at people for being religious -- i hear it in response to what is viewed as intolerance and hypocrisy, etc.

i know a lot of liberal gay people. many go to church. they like religiion. even the ones who don't go, don't seem to dislike religious people, but they sure don't like Bill O'Reilly and others like him because they see in him and others the incessant promotion of intolerance.

(05-29-2009 11:52 AM)kinderowl Wrote:  i consider religion to be a very private matter, and in some ways i think that's one of the things that has changed in this country. this may engender more debate, but i'm troubled by the way that part of the standard for measuring a good conservative has become to measure whether someone sufficiently wears religion on his sleeve.

i think that anti-choice activity (blocking access to clinics, bombings, and the like) and anti-gay campaigns (think well back to anita bryant's rallies which were more anti gay versus anti gay rights which weren't even really on the table yet in this country) are a significant reason for why the religious right (or better said, at least part of it) has gotten a bad name in some circles. religion isn't private anymore and more importantly there are some who would use it like a sword and do harm to others in the process.

i can honestly say that i feel that the sneer you hear from people talking about the religious right seems to be a response to the sneering and bullying that has been increasingly coming over the last couple of decades from some in those quarters. and, like emmie, i don't hear it in ways that are directed at people for being religious -- i hear it in response to what is viewed as intolerance and hypocrisy, etc.

i know a lot of liberal gay people. many go to church. they like religiion. even the ones who don't go, don't seem to dislike religious people, but they sure don't like Bill O'Reilly and others like him because they see in him and others the incessant promotion of intolerance.

I guess I'm not a good conservative. Since I'm not a good liberal either, and embody parts of both philosophies, i guess i can label myself. I am a nongood conservative. Wait a minute, I need to think on this more.

Clearly, there are many shades of gray to most conservatives and most liberals. Too many variations, not enough labels, and not enough political parties to give cohesion on these issues.

I see the sneering and bullying going both ways, and a lot of pot, kettle finger-pointing. I think it would cerainly be better if we could avoid all the acrimony, from both sides.

I have known a few gay people, only one at the moment. None of them were/are religious in any way. Proves nothing, just saying my experience.

Intolerance is an intriguing concept. So is tolerance. What exactly are American supposed to tolerate? Well, religious and political differences come to mind. Sure seems to me we could use a little more tolerance on all sides - although I am not anti-gay or racially prejudiced, I sure know what it feels like to be attacked on the assumption that I am.

Likewise, i see a lot of hypocrisy on both sides. I think the myth is that it is the exclusive property of whatever group the speaker is NOT in. (I am using speaker as a double entendre/pun here, in case it went by everybody - wink, wink, nudge nudge).

The best solution I have found is to put myself in the other person's shoe, as best i can. I think that if i were gay, I would want to be treated like everybody else. So not only do I act that way, i advocate principles that reflect that equality of treatment. Equality of treatment by definition excludes special treatment, which is why I advocate gay marriage. Give gays the same right rights as anybody else, there is no need for special provisions under the law. I also see no reason why they cannot serve in the military, but take that up with Bill Clinton, among others.

But heck, that is just me, a nongood conservative. Or whatever.

I know many religious gay people. I actually kind of like the gay "take" on Christianity, stripped of all the hatred of those who "aren't like us."

I also have many friends who are fundamentalist Christians. A number of them are wont to say that their take on gay people is, "Love the sinner, hate the sin." I usually respond by saying that in my Bible, I find Jesus saying, "Love the sinner, forgive the sin." And one way or the other, we are ALL sinners.

it's hard to read your tone in email sometimes. i don't know whether you intend sarcasm but some of your posts seem to drip with it. i try to assume it's all well-intentioned.

if your point is that both sides are imperfect and let's all follow the golden rule, i couldn't agree more.

but, i tend to agree with emmie, there is a lot of crying foul right now in the conservative media, which i listen to for grins and a dose of something other than Obama love (which wears me out, too), about how religion is being picked on. it seems to me to be shallow, remarkably exagerraged, and designed to try to stoke the flames in a party out of power for the sake of having something to be angry and motivated about.

if the golden rule is what the RR wants, how about practicing it? if the RR doesn't want to be in a fight, how about not throwing stones?

from what you wrote, it appears you put the first stone, so to speak, in this modern rhetoric war between the RR and liberals, at roe v wade. i don't. i put it more at the violence designed to stop people from exercising the rights that roe v. wade established or recognized (depending on how you view the case) and at the hate speech couched in religion that has crept up since in relation to choice and gays.

i'm guessing that you see pc speak as a form of bullying (including the miss california deal). but, i have yet to see gay people rally to tell straight people that they need to give up their religion or they need to be gay. and, i have not read a single news report about a religious right chuch being bombed by gay people or choice proponents, or about either group blocking a church so that those of faith can't access it. this kind of bullying is worse than words, though all of it is bad.

what i will readily concede is the unfortunate fact that occasionally rallies for and against choice or gay rights degenerate into violence between protestors. That's bad for america and we should all be ashamed of our failure to engage in more civil discourse.

(05-29-2009 12:45 PM)kinderowl Wrote:  it's hard to read your tone in email sometimes. i don't know whether you intend sarcasm but some of your posts seem to drip with it. i try to assume it's all well-intentioned.

Are you addressing me or OO (or someone else) here?
I realize that a lot of my posts drip with what I would call cynicism rather than sarcasm, but this last one wasn't one of those.

(05-29-2009 12:45 PM)kinderowl Wrote:  it's hard to read your tone in email sometimes. i don't know whether you intend sarcasm but some of your posts seem to drip with it. i try to assume it's all well-intentioned.

if your point is that both sides are imperfect and let's all follow the golden rule, i couldn't agree more.

but, i tend to agree with emmie, there is a lot of crying foul right now in the conservative media, which i listen to for grins and a dose of something other than Obama love (which wears me out, too), about how religion is being picked on. it seems to me to be shallow, remarkably exagerraged, and designed to try to stoke the flames in a party out of power for the sake of having something to be angry and motivated about.

if the golden rule is what the RR wants, how about practicing it? if the RR doesn't want to be in a fight, how about not throwing stones?

from what you wrote, it appears you put the first stone, so to speak, in this modern rhetoric war between the RR and liberals, at roe v wade. i don't. i put it more at the violence designed to stop people from exercising the rights that roe v. wade established or recognized (depending on how you view the case) and at the hate speech couched in religion that has crept up since in relation to choice and gays.

i'm guessing that you see pc speak as a form of bullying (including the miss california deal). but, i have yet to see gay people rally to tell straight people that they need to give up their religion or they need to be gay. and, i have not read a single news report about a religious right chuch being bombed by gay people or choice proponents, or about either group blocking a church so that those of faith can't access it. this kind of bullying is worse than words, though all of it is bad.

what i will readily concede is the unfortunate fact that occasionally rallies for and against choice or gay rights degenerate into violence between protestors. That's bad for america and we should all be ashamed of our failure to engage in more civil discourse.

I understand what you mean by it being difficult to read tone. Just think of my voice as questioning, with an undertone of dry humor (I enjoy yours, BTW), envision me as a country bumpkin with a quizical look, not a redfaced angry uptight bluenose. Maybe that will help.

The Repub have been out of power only 2.5 years. This all started way before that.

I don't know that the RR doesn't want a fight. What they want is what their opponents want - victory, things done the way they say they should done. Still seems more pot, kettle to me. As for the Golden Rule, I think we are still in a P/K there.

I wouldn't call Roe v. Wade the first stone, but the point of schism between different christian factions. Abortion and gay rights are pretty much the main divide. By the time Roe happened, I was a young adult with three kids and a job. I saw the before, and we are still seeing the after. I really don't care for either one very much.

I do see PC speak as a form of bullying, as i would any group that tells me what I can say and how I can say it. I don't see gay people rallying to tell religious people they have to give up their religion, only that they must keep it to themselves and not let it influence their political choices. I also have not heard of a gay or choice group bombing anything, but I have just recently seen a video report of a gay group invading and disrupting a church service, so that the church members could not have their service.

Still comes down to both sides wanting a change from the other. P/K.

I think gay marriage should be legal. Other people don't for various reasons. I won't tell them to shut up. I don't want them to tell me to shut up.

Plug in various issues, same attitude.

Shoot, in 10 years, gay marriage will be commonplace and few people will think of it as an issue.

(05-29-2009 01:34 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I think gay marriage should be legal. Other people don't for various reasons. I won't tell them to shut up. I don't want them to tell me to shut up.

Plug in various issues, same attitude.

Shoot, in 10 years, gay marriage will be commonplace and few people will think of it as an issue.

Interesting that you think so. I would agree; I think gay rights is sort of the last wave of the overall civil rights movements in America. I hope that many people that have opposed it on the grounds of some impending "moral collapse" will realize how foolish they were once gay marriage is commonplace and yet the world keeps spinning.

I am far more concerned about the future of Roe v. Wade. I could see that being overturned in my lifetime (though, I was far, far, more concerned during the last 4 years than I am now).

I could have posted a seperate thread I suppose, but it relates to some things said here: Dr. Tiller (a well-known late-term abortion provider) was gunned down at his CHURCH, no less, in my hometown of Wichita, KS.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/6450851.html
A stunning display of hypocrisy.

(05-31-2009 11:16 PM)emmiesix Wrote:  

(05-29-2009 01:34 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I think gay marriage should be legal. Other people don't for various reasons. I won't tell them to shut up. I don't want them to tell me to shut up.

Plug in various issues, same attitude.

Shoot, in 10 years, gay marriage will be commonplace and few people will think of it as an issue.

Interesting that you think so. I would agree; I think gay rights is sort of the last wave of the overall civil rights movements in America. I hope that many people that have opposed it on the grounds of some impending "moral collapse" will realize how foolish they were once gay marriage is commonplace and yet the world keeps spinning.

I am far more concerned about the future of Roe v. Wade. I could see that being overturned in my lifetime (though, I was far, far, more concerned during the last 4 years than I am now).

I could have posted a seperate thread I suppose, but it relates to some things said here: Dr. Tiller (a well-known late-term abortion provider) was gunned down at his CHURCH, no less, in my hometown of Wichita, KS.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/6450851.html
A stunning display of hypocrisy.

Not in any way defending the guy... but was he any more of a hypocrite than the doctor? I'm not aware of ANY church that supports murder OR late term abortions.


I'm not concerned about RVW because its been pretty well supplanted with other decisions over the years. There isn't some groundswell of support to make abortion illegal. Of all the states one would expect to ban gay marriage, California was one I would have never guessed... my point being, people surprise you... and/or laws are rarely passed or fail based upon what is in the title.

(05-31-2009 11:16 PM)emmiesix Wrote:  

(05-29-2009 01:34 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I think gay marriage should be legal. Other people don't for various reasons. I won't tell them to shut up. I don't want them to tell me to shut up.

Plug in various issues, same attitude.

Shoot, in 10 years, gay marriage will be commonplace and few people will think of it as an issue.

Interesting that you think so. I would agree; I think gay rights is sort of the last wave of the overall civil rights movements in America. I hope that many people that have opposed it on the grounds of some impending "moral collapse" will realize how foolish they were once gay marriage is commonplace and yet the world keeps spinning.

I am far more concerned about the future of Roe v. Wade. I could see that being overturned in my lifetime (though, I was far, far, more concerned during the last 4 years than I am now).

I could have posted a seperate thread I suppose, but it relates to some things said here: Dr. Tiller (a well-known late-term abortion provider) was gunned down at his CHURCH, no less, in my hometown of Wichita, KS.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/6450851.html
A stunning display of hypocrisy.

I guess this thread will segue again.

I am not sure who you are calling hypocrite. The shooter? The pro-life groups who denounce him? I am guessing the latter, correct me if I'm wrong.

I think it is wrong to tar all pro-lifers with the brush that they somehow support the shooting. I think 99.999% of prolifers would condemn it. Unfortunately, I think the pro-choice side will now start using the shooter as the poster child of pro-life, which is about as fair as using Tim McVea as a representative of ex-military.

I am saying this as a non-involved spectator, as i support neither side. I have said this makes me a de facto pro-choicer, as I do not think it is my place to define the point at which a woman's right to abort a fetus becomes a mother's duty to protect and nurture her child. I can't do it for myself,so i don't do it for others. I CAN define the shooting of an adult as murder, and I do not support that.

If RVW was overturned, I think the matter would be returned to the states, to decide on a state-by-state basis, not that it would become an illegal practice nationally. A lot of states would pass laws legalizing abortion, some more liberal than others, some more restrictive. I see no problem with that. Either way.

(05-29-2009 11:52 AM)kinderowl Wrote:  i consider religion to be a very private matter, and in some ways i think that's one of the things that has changed in this country. this may engender more debate, but i'm troubled by the way that part of the standard for measuring a good conservative has become to measure whether someone sufficiently wears religion on his sleeve.

i think that anti-choice activity (blocking access to clinics, bombings, and the like) and anti-gay campaigns (think well back to anita bryant's rallies which were more anti gay versus anti gay rights which weren't even really on the table yet in this country) are a significant reason for why the religious right (or better said, at least part of it) has gotten a bad name in some circles. religion isn't private anymore and more importantly there are some who would use it like a sword and do harm to others in the process.

i can honestly say that i feel that the sneer you hear from people talking about the religious right seems to be a response to the sneering and bullying that has been increasingly coming over the last couple of decades from some in those quarters. and, like emmie, i don't hear it in ways that are directed at people for being religious -- i hear it in response to what is viewed as intolerance and hypocrisy, etc.

i know a lot of liberal gay people. many go to church. they like religiion. even the ones who don't go, don't seem to dislike religious people, but they sure don't like Bill O'Reilly and others like him because they see in him and others the incessant promotion of intolerance.

I agree that it is private. Some religions tell you to be much more , shall we say, forceful in your "witness". Obviously, killing and fighting is an anathema to the true point, but many do it anyway. They are completely misguided. Of course, many wars were supposedly fought over religion... but many more were fronts for something else. Most preachers who are "out on the edge" aren't there because they believe God told them to be there... they are there because they WANT to be there. The guy who killed the abortion doctor is in many ways equivalent to these Muslim extremists who believe their ends justify their means. Those who incited this guy and others like him are just like the Imams we complain about.

(05-29-2009 12:43 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I know many religious gay people. I actually kind of like the gay "take" on Christianity, stripped of all the hatred of those who "aren't like us."

I also have many friends who are fundamentalist Christians. A number of them are wont to say that their take on gay people is, "Love the sinner, hate the sin." I usually respond by saying that in my Bible, I find Jesus saying, "Love the sinner, forgive the sin." And one way or the other, we are ALL sinners.

EXACTLY... I accept you as you are, and I challenge you to do better... just as I am trying to do better... REGARDLESS of what that means... That isn't really the "gay" take... it's (at least IMO) the CHRISTIAN take.

The old testament is FULL of hatred and war, but not the new. The new is about Jesus, and Jesus said so many times in so many ways... the greatest commandment is Love. If you claim to be a Christian and have to point to the old testament for support, then you miss the entire message of Jesus.

Before Moses... vengeance is mine... God as punisher of the wicked
Before Christ... and eye for an eye... The principle of punishment befitting the crime
After Christ, who was sent here to pay for our sins... Love one another... ALL of their/our sins are paid for.

So I can claim to be quite religious... against all of the things the bible says are bad... guilty of many of them myself... and yet not look down upon those who are ALSO guilty of sins... because that is not why I am here. Ask me my opinion, you will get a pretty right wing answer... ask me what I'd do about it... or to "enforce" it... you'd get a very left wing one.