2024-03-28, 13:43 *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: And you call US crazy? (rights, or no rights?)  (Read 8419 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Angst
Rabid Doomer
 

Team Member
Elite
***
Posts: 1011

WWW
« on: 2005-11-19, 02:25 »

http://www.gazetteextra.com/bibleban110405.asp

University of Wisconsin Eau Claire banned a number of dorm RA's from leading bible studies after "some students" expressed "concern" that the after-hours activities occurring in the RA's room might cause social anxiety, and somehow the simple act of a bible study occurring might magically start to convert them.

Quote
UW-Eau Claire spokesman Mike Rindo said Thursday the university prohibits resident assistants from leading Bible studies or other activities like partisan political events in the dorms. It doesn't prohibit them from attending them.
I'm aware of 1 Hindu, 3 Muslim, and 1 Buddhist group, not to mention a number of anti-white groups that are readily accepted in the dorms; and lead by RA's

Apparently those aren't "partisan political events" or "bible studies"
Logged

"Who says a chainsaw isn't a ranged weapon?"
Phoenix
Bird of Fire
 

Team Member
Elite (7.5k+)
*********
Posts: 8805

WWW
« Reply #1 on: 2005-11-19, 06:58 »

When will people stop kidding themselves and realize there's an anti-Christian bias within just about every corporate, educational, and governmental institution in existence anymore?  How much more proof is needed before the denial becomes inexcusable?  And for what, people are that afraid someone might find Jesus and follow his teachings?  I never knew that "love thy neighbor" was more of a danger to society than someone strapping on a vest full of explosives.
« Last Edit: 2005-11-19, 07:01 by Phoenix » Logged


I fly into the night, on wings of fire burning bright...
Makou
 

Team Member
Shub-Niggurath
*************
Posts: 749

« Reply #2 on: 2005-11-19, 13:53 »

As a resident assistant at my school, I can say with some authority that on college campuses, it's not so much an "anti-Christian" bias as it's an "anti-majority" bias -- meaning if you're a part of almost any majority group, especially if you're white, you're less likely to find help and acceptance among college programs. The exception being accepted to the college itself, and even that is starting to fade, as there are more and more "minority" students being accepted every year. It's true that more students in general are accepted, but it's not proportional.

Basically, "multi-cultural" translates to "non-white, non-Christian" these days. Students of non-white backgrounds, particularly African, Latino, Asian, and Native Americans, will find many groups and programs just for them with no necessary "diversity statement" within their constitutions, while any other program or group must have a diversity statement or they won't be recognized by the college or the SUNY system as a whole. It's absurd every way you look at it.
Logged

If you see a "Rona Altana" out there on the internet somewhere, that's probably me
scalliano
 

Elite
*
Posts: 1095

Yup, that's me

« Reply #3 on: 2005-11-19, 15:46 »

It's funny you should mention this cos I've come across some pretty similar happenings within local councils over here in the UK being reported in the papers. Many want to play down the whole "Christmas" element of, er, Christmas in order to avoid stepping on the toes of non-Christian groups in the community. They're not Christmas trees anymore, they're "winter" trees. They're not Christmas lights, they're "winter" or "celebrity" (???) lights.

I have always been strongly opposed to so-called political correctness, as all that it does is show up those who advocate it for what they really are: bigoted, racist, sectarian bastards. This sort of thing REALLY pisses me off.
Logged

PSN ID: scalliano

The Arena knows no gender, colour or creed, only skill.
Kajet
 

Vadrigar
*********
Posts: 601

I have no clue what to put here...

« Reply #4 on: 2005-11-19, 17:06 »

So... whatever happened to the concept of "Majority Rule"? Slipgate - Exhausted
Logged
Tabun
Pixel Procrastinator
 

Team Member
Elite (3k+)
******
Posts: 3330

WWW
« Reply #5 on: 2005-11-19, 19:13 »

Although it obviously won't keep me awake at night, renaming Christmas trees is plain silly. Regardless of the origins of the holidays, whether you pick the Pagan or the Christian basis for them, renaming is nonsense. Speaking as a "non-Christian", I can tell you that I don't quite understand how people can get offended by the names of holidays. Now if it were called "Stomp-the-Infidel-day" or something like that, I could see some people getting their knickers in a twist, although I'd still laugh at those taking serious offense. I'm strongly against forcing 'the holiday spirit' on anyone, but I can't fault calling Christmas simply what it is (or has come to be). Or Hanukah, or Independance Day or .. you name it. I'll always have a chuckle at the 'Easter bunny' and the 'Christmas tree', but by golly - that's their proper name.
« Last Edit: 2005-11-19, 19:14 by Tabun » Logged

Tabun ?Morituri Nolumus Mori?
Phoenix
Bird of Fire
 

Team Member
Elite (7.5k+)
*********
Posts: 8805

WWW
« Reply #6 on: 2005-11-20, 04:04 »

That's like Michael Newdow suing to get "In God We Trust" off US currency.  Whether it belongs there or not isn't the real point, it's been there for decades and it's never been a problem until now.  If it is not on the currency, it does not really hurt anyone who believes in a god, but if you're an atheist and it is there, you don't believe in any kind of God anyway, so how can you be offended by something that (to you) does not exist?  And if someone does believe in some kind of deity, it is not specified what deity, so therefore, how can they be offended who are not of the Christian faith?  He even went so far as quoting John Madison in his little rant, as if the Founding Fathers of the US Constitution would agree with him, yet if you read the US Declaration of Independence, authored by the same people, it mentions "created" and "Creator" as to the source of human rights and liberties, basically saying "whatever being made mankind is where man's rights come from".  The sole purpose for this language was to place the source of human rights beyond the reach of man and, more importantly, government.  As soon as you start saying government is the source of human rights, you open the door for tyranny, for government always acts in its own interests, not the people's.  There was great wisdom in doing this, something that someone like Newdow has absolutely no grasp of because of his obsession with removing any reference of God from society as a whole.

Where I see the problem is not so much people who don't believe in God, or those belong to a different faith besides Christianity being offended, it is a paranoia of being sued by someone.  I've heard Muslims say that they are sad to see Christmas be shoved into a dark closet this way.  Why can't we be free to celebrate our faiths together?  No, the problem isn't people of different faiths being offended, it's in people who want to bully religion out of society completely.  It's people who are hateful of the very concept of any kind of god, and who can't stand the sight of any reminder of worship of any kind that are on an unholy crusade to exterminate religious expression.  These people are not atheists, they're anti-religious.  They're nothing but hate mongers hiding behind a pretense of "equality".  I do think it's focused more on Christianity than other religions because I see the resultant behavior of this pressure within the government and corporate leadership.  Everyone is encouraged to be tolerant of Islam, but Christianity is thrown into the closet by public officials and businesses.  The exception would be some members of Congress or the President who are part of the "religious right", if there is such a thing;  I'm referring to bureaucrats, judges, and also corporate executives who knuckle under for fear of litigation by people like Newdow.  They're afraid of litigation in a sue-happy society, and so we can sell you all the things you need, but we can't acknowledge what you're going to use them for.  A rather sick twist on Victorianism if I've ever seen one.

What a sad state this world is in when acknowledging our differences is no longer possible, and it is done so in the name of tolerance.  Instead of celebrating diversity, it has been sacrificed on the altar of fear, in the name of hatred and vitriol, all so that an angry intolerant minority can remake society in their image at the expense of the freedoms that belong to everyone.  Diversity dies, and the homogeonized, dull, uninteresting mass of humanity remains, stripped of individuality, heritage, history, or tradition.  Of what benefit this to mankind, living in such a state of denial?  We've already seen people before who feel this way, who think this is how things should be; I need not name them.  Imagine living in the world they wish to create.  That is the future, should this continue unchecked and unopposed.  It is not just harmful to those of faith, it is the death of freedom of thought and expression, of culture and history.  It is Ayn Rand's dream come true, and the worst nightmare of every free-thinking individual on this earth.
Logged


I fly into the night, on wings of fire burning bright...
scalliano
 

Elite
*
Posts: 1095

Yup, that's me

« Reply #7 on: 2005-11-20, 04:15 »

I don't consider myself a Christian but I can't see how members of any faith could possibly go to such lengths to "accommodate" other religions without massively watering down their own. Can you imagine Passover being referred to as "Big Dinner Day"? Technically I'd be celebrating it every day and I'm not even Jewish. Or perhaps our very own St Patrick's Day becoming "Everybody Pretends To Be Irish Day" or worse, "Leprechaun Day"? (shudders)

To me, the whole thing stinks of a massive guilt trip on the part of those ultimately responsible for the social divisions we see in the world every day. To me, that is the sole definition of political correctness ie the language of fear. Not to mention that from personal experience it only seems to apply to white males. Yes I am white, yes I am male but that does NOT mean that I am personally responsible for the sexual/racial/ethnic discrimination that happens every day. Nor does my being Irish mean that I am a member of a paramilitary organization (but try telling that to customs officers or the police in mainland UK). Women can make derogatory remarks about men without any fallout, other religions can practice without anyone "taking offence", other cultures can be freely expressed without public outcry, so why the need to tip-toe around them? Granted, white so-called Christians have been resonsible for many atrocities in the past (and still are today), but the same goes for many other races and religions so why does the ordinary Joe Bloggs have to atone for the evils carried out by others?

No matter what you do or say, it will be objectionable to someone. Live with it. If they have any shred of human decency, they will do likewise.

I, on the other hand, simply hate everyone in equal measure Slipgate - Tongue
Logged

PSN ID: scalliano

The Arena knows no gender, colour or creed, only skill.
Moshman
 
Beta Tester
Vadrigar
**********
Posts: 615

Yarg!

« Reply #8 on: 2005-11-20, 08:56 »

All those anti-christian pussies can kiss my white pasty ass. Dipshits.
Logged

Phoenix
Bird of Fire
 

Team Member
Elite (7.5k+)
*********
Posts: 8805

WWW
« Reply #9 on: 2005-11-20, 09:05 »

The problem is, Washu, those anti-Christian "kitty cats", as you put it, are pushing public policy.
Logged


I fly into the night, on wings of fire burning bright...
Woodsman
Icon of Booze
 

Beta Tester
Icon of Sin
***********
Posts: 823

« Reply #10 on: 2005-11-20, 09:10 »

Quote from: scalliano
I, on the other hand, simply hate everyone in equal measure Slipgate - Tongue
i try to offend everyone in equal measure. Like those Irish. Damn drunken mics. Oh and dont forget those scots..... god how i loathe those scots. Hagistani bastards.
 These days everyone wants to be an  oppressed minority and if we dont belong to one we make somthing up so we can be pissed off. If i had such a need myself i might claim that the mention of Hanukkah on school calendars is in violation of the seperation of church and state and my personal religous freedom. I might then demand that "winter break" be moved to janurary so as not to be confused with any kind of goverment recognition of religous holidays. Of course im not a whiny bitch who has nothing better to do than complain that not every belives exactly what i do so i says Happy Hanukkah and Merry freaking Christmas and what ever specific holiday might be going on at the time but i WILL NOT say happy holidays. And if anybody dosent like it well spork them! Merry sporking christmas to you anyway shithead.
Logged
Tabun
Pixel Procrastinator
 

Team Member
Elite (3k+)
******
Posts: 3330

WWW
« Reply #11 on: 2005-11-20, 11:30 »

Quote
As soon as you start saying government is the source of human rights, you open the door for tyranny, for government always acts in its own interests, not the people's. There was great wisdom in doing this, something that someone like Newdow has absolutely no grasp of because of his obsession with removing any reference of God from society as a whole

The idea is noble and perhaps the best way to keep the masses in check. However, to name attacks on it an 'obsession' is not entirely just (unless you're willing to call the desire to keep the symbols obsessive aswell). There is a remarkable amount of danger too in 'removing man's grasp on human rights', because it removes responsibility and perhaps a grasp of reality. Man does not have to answer to himself then, he answers to the unknowable, to the deity. In so doing, man fools himself, risks losing himself in fundamentalism and strays from important points of discussion. To the believer, there is no harm in that at all, because it is the only way to go - but that is exactly the point: some see things differently. From their point of view (in extremes, think of Nietzsche) it is not an attack but the only possible defense, necessary for human survival in the long run.

Furthermore, when it looks like the government is under the control of a higher, trustworthy order, this is all the more dangerous if this is not the case. If a body can simply point upwards for confirmation, it can in the meantime (either wittingly or unwittingly, the former being the most insidious) destroy lives, nations and ideas without truly being held responsible for it, and basing their actions off of something that is as powerful as it is reciprocally existant.

Speaking for myself, I am not offended by 'In God we trust' on coinage (which we have had in a similar form on our previous type of currency for a long time), but it was something that struck me as odd and even somewhat hypocritical, seeing how money is a perfect medium for observing how little trust people have. Anyway, regardless of my personal mildness in this matter, it is untrue that non-believers should be un-offendable. Their values and beliefs (because everybody has those) make them just as sensitive to attempts to harm their person or mankind as believers. I've noticed, on that account, that most people who believe in more concrete, exact matters find it hard to understand how people can believe in abstract ideas and vice versa - and most even harder to respect those ideas, and easier to offend their owners.
It is not the fact that there are references to gods in society that offends those people, it's the fact that people are grasping on to non-existant anchors, swearing by them, using them as grounds for decisions secular matters, etc. - and attacking them for not joining in.

That said, I think the ones respecting Islam while attacking Christianism are as foolish as those saying believing in Shiva is ridiculous while believing in another god. Uneven attacks of this kind are nuts, just like the 'I hate to be white' hype that held the Western world in check for a few decades of the last century. It is much a pendulum, so I don't expect ideas of that kind to last very long. As soon as something has been 'tolerated' long enough to make it part of accepted normality, then it is opened up to attack. If ever (which I would hate to see) Christianism would be reduced to a microscopic minority, it would automatically be on the 'toleration' list again. However much I am in favour of diversity at any given moment, I am sure that diversity through time is preferrable. :]
« Last Edit: 2005-11-20, 11:30 by Tabun » Logged

Tabun ?Morituri Nolumus Mori?
shambler
 
Icon of Sin
**********
Posts: 999

« Reply #12 on: 2005-11-20, 20:52 »

Seems to me there is only one god, but lots of ways to work with him/her.
Logged
Phoenix
Bird of Fire
 

Team Member
Elite (7.5k+)
*********
Posts: 8805

WWW
« Reply #13 on: 2005-11-21, 03:43 »

There's a marked difference in saying rights come from an authority higher than man, and therefore are not granted by man, and saying that man is acting with that authority to take rights away.  That's the whole point.  If you just "point upward" to justify what you are doing in government, then you - the government official - are acting to remove or limit somehow the rights of the people, and saying you're doing it in the name of that which  granted the rights in the first place.  That creates a logical paradox.  Stating that rights are given by a higher power is precisely the opposite of absolving man of responsibility.  It points the finger square at mankind and government specifically for limiting rights because, if rights be granted by a Creator, then man can only act to limit them, not to grant them.  This creates the highest burden of responsibility, not the least as you've suggested - so long as this principle is understood by those in authority.  Saying man, and specifically government, grants rights means government has full authority to remove them since rights are given only at the will of those in power.  This means those in power have absolutely no limitations on their ability to control the rights and freedoms of the people since they and they alone are solely responsible for granting such rights.  This then turns into the "golden rule" - he who has the gold makes the rules, government is never wrong, and aristocracy rules because that is the order of things.  It is very close the concept of the divine right of kings during the feudal period, which I think is the kind of thinking you are expressing concern about, except that there is no deity involved.  That sort of system I oppose wholeheartedly as it flies square in face of freedom.  The only King I will ever bow to is Christ Himself, and anyone claiming to be Him better bring all the angels in heaven along as proof.

The difference in concept is this:  Whether the existence of rights is the default condition and rights can only be limited by government, or whether the lack of rights is the default condition and rights and must be explicitly given by government.  Those in power historically have abused it, so controlling government is a necessity.  That is why you must put the source of rights above government, otherwise government becomes society's god, whether they want one or not.

I understand that atheists are not unfeeling, I never said they were unoffendable, only that I find it ludicrous to be offended by something that one does not believe in to the point of trying to remake society over it.  Now regarding Newdow specifically, no, he is completely obsessed with what he's doing.  He's the same guy who tried to take "Under God" out of the Pledge of Allegiance.  He was using the 9th circuit court of appeals in California - which is notorious for being hard left-leaning in its rulings - in a case in which he sued on behalf of his daughter, which he does not even have custody of, under the pretense that he, as an atheist, felt that his daughter was being harmed by being exposed to this in school.  His daughter, on the other hand, loves saying the pledge and is very much Christian, and his wife (which got absolutely no press coverage by the major media outlets until very late in the game) was outraged at what he was doing.  His case was appealed all the way to the US Supreme Court, which refused to hear it.  Since he couldn't get the wording of the pledge changed, he's going after the currency.  The entire action is for one purpose - to set a judicial precedent which will lead to even MORE lawsuits of this nature, for which the lawyers and plaintiffs can fall back on HIS case as grounds for their action.  I think this pretty much illustrated the ends that individuals like him will go to in order to get their way.  That's what I'm referring to here.  When people like this win, everyone loses, even him.  He is just too blinded by his hatred and desire to get his way that he will never see the disastrous long term implications of his actions.
Logged


I fly into the night, on wings of fire burning bright...
Woodsman
Icon of Booze
 

Beta Tester
Icon of Sin
***********
Posts: 823

« Reply #14 on: 2005-11-21, 17:10 »

I think it might be worth pointing out that the phrase "in god we trust" on US coinage isn't actually a refrence to religion. Its supposed to emphasize the value of money as an intellectual concept rather than a literal fact. Money is worth goods because we trust it to be.

PS: dont trust turkish lyra.
Logged
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to: