HIGHLA-L Digest - 3 Feb 2006 to 4 Feb 2006 - Special issue (#2006-29)
HIGHLA-L automatic digest system (LISTSERV@lists.psu.edu)
Sat, 4 Feb 2006 14:55:15 -0500
There are 18 messages totalling 821 lines in this issue.
Topics in this special issue:
1. Thought on Debbie, I think she is ok.
2. When was the last time Debbie appeared on the list? (2)
3. Ok, Virginia Foster, are you here? (3)
4. Tolerance. (11)
5. Holy Ground Threatened By Scottish Godlessness!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2006 00:55:33 -0500
From: "Richard Sarner ,Deepest Darkest Denbigh" <rsarner@widomaker.com>
Subject: Re: Thought on Debbie, I think she is ok.
> Richard tries to be the voice of reason:
> >There is at least one person on the
> > list who is in contact with her.
> That person is no longer in contact with Debbie.
Yes, she told me, but there are others.
> > Besides, Google had little information on her, and it was out
> > of date. :)
>
> Ah...but if you know where to look, more recent info can be found
> :::evil cackle:::::
I do, and have.
> I'm not sure that I find a 7 month absence from a List one manages (and
> a many many month -year?- absence before *that*) to be reasonable.
Hmmm. This is true. OK, let's go and get her. We'll tye her up with her
laces.
...Richard
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2006 01:00:03 -0500
From: "Richard Sarner ,Deepest Darkest Denbigh" <rsarner@widomaker.com>
Subject: Re: When was the last time Debbie appeared on the list?
> That's what I just got done shouting.
> Richard has been gone longer than Debbie.
>
> >>Laurie, if you are still around, please let me know how things are going.
>
> I emailed him back and
> I'm just now hearing from him.
>
I never said I'd write back. :P Ok, I'm a sh*t. Things got way busy, like
when Duncan was planning his wedding in Endgame. I'm back for now. Truth
is, Debbie Douglass was one of my aliases. She doesn't really exist. I
hired an actress.
...Richard
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2006 01:01:28 -0500
From: "Richard Sarner ,Deepest Darkest Denbigh" <rsarner@widomaker.com>
Subject: Ok, Virginia Foster, are you here?
Virginia Foster, are you here? I have a question or two for you.
...Richard
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2006 07:05:37 EST
From: Degruy@aol.com
Subject: Re: Ok, Virginia Foster, are you here?
<<Virginia Foster, are you here? I have a question or two for you. >>
I see her every so often here in Atlanta. I am not sure how much she still
keeps up with this list however.
Edward deGruy
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2006 13:08:47 -0000
From: John Mosby - Laptop <a.j.mosby@btinternet.com>
Subject: Tolerance.
Normally these religious threads come to a natural smiting and head off =
into debates about Cassandra, Richie or whether even numbered Highlander =
movies are just a tiny bit worse than odd ones.
However reading the news, particularly in Europe, today, it's worth =
noting that tolerance/free speech/respect has become a hot potato again =
with the furore over cartoons printed in Denmark which the Muslim world =
has taken exception to. At first there were only demands for a =
retraction and an apology for causing offence (the offending cartoon =
shows Mohammed wearing a turban made out of a bomb and there was =
apparently another cartto reference to bombers being told that heaven =
had run out of virgins so they should stop the campaigns). The Danish =
newspaper refused, citing free speech and the fact they weren't =
'targetting' or trying to offend anyone and they were fairly equal in =
their satirical drawings of the news of the moment. In the last few =
days there have been huge international protests with calls for violence =
against newspapers that reprint the cartoons, people carrying signs =
that say 'Behead those who insult Islam' and threats of bombings unless =
apologies are made and more respect given. Actual bombings followed.
I think the running of the cartoons was probably a bit of a mistake in =
retrospect, though how much of one is open to question. In countries =
like Denmark and much of Europe we enjoy the right of free speech and =
the capability of accepting there's a difference between an outright =
insult and a satirical charicature. Open the page of any decent =
newspaper and you can find cartonist commenting on current events - the =
best ones managing to walk a fine line between humour, insight and a =
barbed tongue. A Conservative or Republican can see a cartoon and =
totally disagree with its angle without falling to the floor, weeping =
and ringing a lawyer. But equally it's like any joke... a matter of =
timing and who's telling it. If I say 'A jew and a black man walk into a =
bar...' and make either of them the butt of the joke there could be a =
legitimate sense of potential racism (even if not meant to be hugely =
offensive). If Jackie Mason or Eddie Murphy tell a similar joke it'd be =
hard to find it objectionable (on those basic grounds at least).
There is a need for sensitivity, for a responsible attitude, the thing =
that says to you 'Ok, *I* think that's funny, but could it be seen as =
very unfunny by our audience and if so should we err on the side of =
caution and print something else?'. But ohw far does that sensitivity =
go? Some muslims in the Middle East are bombing buildings on the back =
of this indignation. That is unacceptable. You can be angry, displeased, =
take legal action and stand up for the right to say so... but whatever =
offends you does not give you the right to call for murdering someone. =
Ever. In a purely pragmatic way, given the furore... newspapers almost =
HAVE to ignore the calls for a retraction as it appears as if they would =
be backing down under pressure. Suddenly it's a matter of free speech, =
an obligation to say: 'We'll print whatever we want because that's a =
democracy and we aren't going to give in to journalistic jihads...' =
They have a point. If something is printed in a paper in MumbleBeck, =
Wisconsin does a person in Burkaville, Downtown Iran have the right to =
say 'Stop that! I don't like it'. Equally can a guy in Senatetown, USA =
decide to bomb The FuriousEthnic Times in Jihandtown if he doesn't like =
their editor? Does their respective indignation carry more weight if =
they all live in the same neighbourhood? It's a small world after =
all... (great, now that song's in my head again).
We DO have to be sensitive to the fact that there is a growth in people =
who take religion *very* seriously... seriously to the point that that =
any criticism or levity aimed in its diction is seen as blasphemous and =
that is seen as carte blanche for any retalitaion or action. While that =
is not acceptable in a democracy, the right to have a level of respect =
for religious beliefs should be. It's a balance that only works when =
both sides think about everyone else's rights rather than just their own =
rights. It won't stop some people being offended by things that others =
find acceptable, but it does offer perspective.
I won't have my everyday funny bone controlled by a value-system from =
the Middle East, but I won't go out of my way to force that humour on =
them.
It's all put in perspective when you actually see the cartoons in parts =
of the Arab press, particularly those in the likes of Akhbar al-Khalij, =
that take huge pleasure in charicaturing Jews and their leaders in ways =
that Goebbels would find hugely entertaining. Not pleasant, not =
clever... but you don't see the same scale of intenrational protests and =
Stars of David being thrown like ninja stars at the local mosque. Rottie =
is right that no-one seems to worry about upsettingJesus ("Maybe that's =
because Jesus doesn't tear people's arms out of their sockets when he =
loses..." )=20
Christians, in my experience, can take a joke. Jews love some =
self-depricating humour as long as its them doing the depricating. Sure, =
there's some intolerance, grumbles when a boundary is pushed, but it =
depends on who's doing the pushing, how and why. Respect... with good =
grace. If Christ, Jehovah and Budhha can take it on the chin, maybe =
other religions should be able to take it too.=20
Which ironically is apparently exactly what the original cartoons in =
question was meant to say. =20
John
=20
----- Original Message -----=20
From: "MacWestie" <mac.westie@VERIZON.NET>
To: <HIGHLA-L@LISTS.PSU.EDU>
Sent: Friday, February 03, 2006 8:06 PM
Subject: Re: [HL] We're All Awake and Everything Anyway . . .
> Kamil--
>> I'm sitting here watching "Dancing With the Stars" (mock not, actors
>> and actors have historically been decent dancers)(or, yanno, mock if
>> you need to, it's all good)
>=20
> Consider yourself mocked. I watch Skating w/ Celebrities, which is =
totally=20
> different. Lots more falls, & blood gushes when they go splat. Now, =
THAT'S=20
> drama.
>=20
>=20
>> and it occurs to me that Adrian would
>> probably be very good at this.
>=20
>=20
> Yes, of course he would. Other than singing & picking decent acting=20
> projects, there's very little the man can't do brilliantly. And =
watching=20
> him would be a swoony joy. And it could help his career, at least in =
the=20
> "can't hurt" sense. But, AP was a professional dancer & =
choreographer. Is=20
> that type of background allowed on this show?
>=20
>=20
>> And it wouldn't suck as publicity for the movie -- although I'm not
>> sure if that's such a good idea . . .
>=20
> What movie? The Source seems to have vanished down a drain someplace, =
> unlike Endgame which was released 15 minutes after filming concluded. =
Money=20
> problems? A sudden realization including the phrase "direct to =
video"?=20
> "Mad editor" Panzer is in rehab?
>=20
>=20
>> Anyway - what say you one, what say you all?
>=20
> Just in general, this one is now going w/ "Smite me."
>=20
> Nina (DEBBIE!!!!!!!!) (I wonder how hard it would be to convince the =
good=20
> folks at the List Serve that one of us IS Debbie....) (hijacking the =
list=20
> might get Debbie's attention) (someone bitter enough might go that =
far)
> mac.westie@verizon.net
>
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2006 13:14:21 -0000
From: Jette Goldie <jette@blueyonder.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Tolerance.
From: "John Mosby - Laptop" <a.j.mosby@BTINTERNET.COM>
> Rottie is right that no-one seems to worry about upsettingJesus ("Maybe
> that's
>because Jesus doesn't tear people's arms out of their sockets when he
>loses..." )
Personally I think that Jesus is bigger than petty vengence - and didn't he
teach "forgiveness"?
jette@blueyonder.co.uk ("reply to" is spamblocked)
http://www.jette.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/kitties.html
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2006 13:20:15 -0000
From: John Mosby - Laptop <a.j.mosby@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: Tolerance.
Wait.
Christians.
Wookies.
Damn
I always get those two mixed up
;)
John
(uh-oh...)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jette Goldie" <jette@BLUEYONDER.CO.UK>
To: <HIGHLA-L@LISTS.PSU.EDU>
Sent: Saturday, February 04, 2006 1:14 PM
Subject: Re: [HL] Tolerance.
> From: "John Mosby - Laptop" <a.j.mosby@BTINTERNET.COM>
>> Rottie is right that no-one seems to worry about upsettingJesus ("Maybe
>> that's
>>because Jesus doesn't tear people's arms out of their sockets when he
>>loses..." )
>
>
>
> Personally I think that Jesus is bigger than petty vengence - and didn't
> he
> teach "forgiveness"?
>
> jette@blueyonder.co.uk ("reply to" is spamblocked)
> http://www.jette.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/kitties.html
>
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2006 09:13:47 -0500
From: kageorge <kageorge1@verizon.net>
Subject: Re: Tolerance.
John Mosby - Laptop wrote:
>
>It's all put in perspective when you actually see the cartoons in parts of the Arab press, particularly those in the likes of Akhbar al-Khalij, that take huge pleasure in charicaturing Jews and their leaders in ways that Goebbels would find hugely entertaining. Not pleasant, not clever... but you don't see the same scale of intenrational protests and Stars of David being thrown like ninja stars at the local mosque. Rottie is right that no-one seems to worry about upsettingJesus ("Maybe that's because Jesus doesn't tear people's arms out of their sockets when he loses..." )
>
To the contrary, in *this* country, at least, there is a certain element
that decries any portrayal of Jesus in a context other than what they
approve of as (what was the exact quote from an earlier post?)
degreading and demeaning. Those who were so enraged by the cartoon(s)
in question at least have the generalized notion on their side that, for
them, any depiction of their religious iconic leader at all is
considered blasphemy. I do not agree that it is right for them to then
violently threaten other countries and/or people who do not hold to
their religion, but just as the newspaper had the right to print it,
they have the right to protest.
What would be a tragedy is that those newspaper then self-censor and
deny expression of an opinion based on those protests. In the same
vein, evidently the religious zealots who believe that a kind,
compassionate Christ depicted in a not-bad television show that also
protrays homosexuality in a way that doesn't automatically condemn them
all to eternal damnation, is so heinous that they brough enough pressure
to bear to take it off the air - and the network *caved*. That is what
is sad, and what is a dire harbinger of an artificially, unhealthily
santized arena of public discourse where only the views of the bigots of
the religious right are allowed.
After all, now the government can now monitor all your internet usage,
your phone calls and library records without a warrant and without
justifying their actions to any outside agency or court. They may even
be monitoring this conversation since we (or anybody, for that matter)
could be terrorists.
MacGeorge
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2006 09:27:13 -0500
From: Virginia Foster <vfoster_042@bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: Ok, Virginia Foster, are you here?
Richard Sarner (voice from the distant past)
><<Virginia Foster, are you here? I have a question or two for you. >>
>
you rang? I might have an answer or two.
Edward (voice from not so distant past)
>I see her every so often here in Atlanta. I am not sure how much she still
>keeps up with this list however.
I'm around, just staying low. It's against my religion to discuss
religion :-) so
I've been quiet during that discussion.
I generally just lay low and stay quiet these days.
virginia (on my way out for the day, so I may not answer questions until
tonight)(or tomorrow)(but I am here)(enjoying the discussion)(If Debbie is
around and well, why doesn't she answer?)(It's not nice to fool Madame
Weasel(Not really interested in The Source)(except to see how badly it sucks)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
vfoster_042@bellsouth.net
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL: "Trying to leave? Sorry. A little more time in Danny's world."
DANIEL FANS: [squee, swoon, thud]
REST OF THE AUDIENCE: Clean up!
Stargate SG-1 Solutions: Breadbox Edition: Reckoning Part 2 by Nialla
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2006 17:32:41 +0200
From: TMar <tmar@polka.co.za>
Subject: Re: Tolerance.
>Wait. Christians. Wookies.
>Damn I always get those two mixed up
I can see how you would. Huge, hairy, make strange noises,
rip people apart...
Actually, no, I can't. Wait! Both seem to like Yoda??
- Marina.
\\ "So what do you wanna do?" ||>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> //
// "I'm not sure... as long as it doesn't || R I C H I E >> \\
\\ involve putting on a suit and doing a lot ||>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> //
// of flying." - Chloe and Clark; Smallville || \\
\\==============tmar@polka.co.za=============|| //
//============Chief Flag Waver and Defender of Richie===========\\
"...fighting for what you believe in is important and that,
sometimes, the only thing that matters is that you *did*
fight." - Keith Topping (about 'Angel')
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2006 15:26:05 -0000
From: Jette Goldie <jette@blueyonder.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Tolerance.
From: "kageorge" <kageorge1@VERIZON.NET>
>
> After all, now the government can now monitor all your internet usage,
> your phone calls and library records without a warrant and without
> justifying their actions to any outside agency or court. They may even
> be monitoring this conversation since we (or anybody, for that matter)
> could be terrorists.
Mmm - I'm looking forward to the new George Clooney movie
"Good Night and Good Luck".
Jette
"Grieve not for the dead, for the dead feel no pain
Weep only for the living who heal to hurt again"
jette@blueyonder.co.uk ("reply to" is spamblocked)
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2006 10:23:26 -0600
From: Ginny Gibbs <red57metoo@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: When was the last time Debbie appeared on the list?
Richard Sarner ,Deepest Darkest Denbigh wrote:
>>That's what I just got done shouting.
>>Richard has been gone longer than Debbie.
>>
>>
>>
>>>>Laurie, if you are still around, please let me know how things are going.
>>>>
>>>>
>>I emailed him back and
>>I'm just now hearing from him.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>I never said I'd write back. :P Ok, I'm a sh*t. Things got way busy, like
>when Duncan was planning his wedding in Endgame. I'm back for now. Truth
>is, Debbie Douglass was one of my aliases. She doesn't really exist. I
>hired an actress.
>
> ...Richard
>
>
>
>
Really? Well, you're a hell of a good dancer and the disguise is
AMAZING, even in close-up. ;)
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2006 10:24:50 -0600
From: Ginny Gibbs <red57metoo@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Tolerance.
Jette Goldie wrote:
> From: "John Mosby - Laptop" <a.j.mosby@BTINTERNET.COM>
>
>> Rottie is right that no-one seems to worry about upsettingJesus
>> ("Maybe that's
>> because Jesus doesn't tear people's arms out of their sockets when he
>> loses..." )
>
>
>
>
> Personally I think that Jesus is bigger than petty vengence - and
> didn't he
> teach "forgiveness"?
>
Also, he wasn't so much into the beheading. :(
> jette@blueyonder.co.uk ("reply to" is spamblocked)
> http://www.jette.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/kitties.html
>
>
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2006 10:58:04 -0600
From: Ginny Gibbs <red57metoo@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Tolerance.
kageorge wrote:
> John Mosby - Laptop wrote:
>
>>
>> It's all put in perspective when you actually see the cartoons in
>> parts of the Arab press, particularly those in the likes of Akhbar
>> al-Khalij, that take huge pleasure in charicaturing Jews and their
>> leaders in ways that Goebbels would find hugely entertaining. Not
>> pleasant, not clever... but you don't see the same scale of
>> intenrational protests and Stars of David being thrown like ninja
>> stars at the local mosque. Rottie is right that no-one seems to worry
>> about upsettingJesus ("Maybe that's because Jesus doesn't tear
>> people's arms out of their sockets when he loses..." )
>>
> To the contrary, in *this* country, at least, there is a certain
> element that decries any portrayal of Jesus in a context other than
> what they approve of as (what was the exact quote from an earlier
> post?) degreading and demeaning. Those who were so enraged by the
> cartoon(s) in question at least have the generalized notion on their
> side that, for them, any depiction of their religious iconic leader at
> all is considered blasphemy. I do not agree that it is right for them
> to then violently threaten other countries and/or people who do not
> hold to their religion, but just as the newspaper had the right to
> print it, they have the right to protest.
>
> What would be a tragedy is that those newspaper then self-censor and
> deny expression of an opinion based on those protests. In the same
> vein, evidently the religious zealots who believe that a kind,
> compassionate Christ depicted in a not-bad television show that also
> protrays homosexuality in a way that doesn't automatically condemn
> them all to eternal damnation, is so heinous that they brough enough
> pressure to bear to take it off the air - and the network *caved*.
> That is what is sad, and what is a dire harbinger of an artificially,
> unhealthily santized arena of public discourse where only the views of
> the bigots of the religious right are allowed.
>
> After all, now the government can now monitor all your internet usage,
> your phone calls and library records without a warrant and without
> justifying their actions to any outside agency or court. They may
> even be monitoring this conversation since we (or anybody, for that
> matter) could be terrorists.
>
> MacGeorge
>
>
This topic (and related ones) is one that has been troubling me (and
driving a fair amount of blog posts in one way or another) for a while.
If anyone would like to see what kind of vitriol was leveled at
"liberal" Christians and the producers of "Book of Daniel" by
"fundamentalist" Christians, read the comments sections in the Episcopal
Church/Diocese of Washington's "Blog of Daniel" during the dates that
the show was actually on the air. The blog's moderator and the show's
creator (who occasionally posts comments) were both a little shaken by
the intolerance shown by just a few of the most passionate detractors of
the show. If you look at the comment count, volume has dropped off
dramatically since the show was cancelled. It was like a pack of wild
dogs that evaporated as soon as the meat was gone - the battle won, they
went on to attack something else until it was dead.
Blog of Daniel is at http://blog.edow.org/weblog/. NBC is webcasting the
episodes that were broadcast, plus a couple more that were not broadcast.
Frankly, I was afraid to post comments myself in there, even though I
have an excellent reason for doing so - I run a blog for my Episcopal
parish church, and we're a "welcoming" parish (which is current parlance
for "gay people will not be beaten and left to die.") I didn't want any
of that hatred following me back and commenting on the church blog,
since we have... well, the whole gay clergy thing is a non-issue. And I
didn't want my priest reading some of that crap, frankly. ;)
So I left it to other progressive types to duke it out with the other
side and try to show them that tolerance is probably a closer walk with
Jesus than intolerance... and stayed silent.
As we all learned from Edmund Burke via Duncan MacLeod (woohoo! OBHL!)
- "all that is necessary for the truimph of evil is for good men to do
nothing." So maybe that wasn't the right thing to do - but I just didn't
want to put up with the bother of moderating comments and blocking
hatemail.
On the issue of the cartoons, I'm grateful that my local paper decided
not to reproduce them, because I'd rather not see something so
offensive. I'd also rather not see the sort of cartoons published in
Arabic-language papers - and wish that we lived in a world where people
didn't have to tear one another down in order to buttress their own
position.
Finally, if everyone is heartily tired of the battle between Hippie
Jesus and Approved Jesus, you might like a good laugh with Patriot Boy
Jesus, as presented by His General: http://patriotboy.blogspot.com/
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2006 12:27:24 EST
From: Dotiran@aol.com
Subject: Re: Tolerance.
In a message dated 2/4/2006 8:16:20 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
jette@blueyonder.co.uk writes:
>>>Personally I think that Jesus is bigger than petty vengence - and didn't
he
teach "forgiveness"?
Yes, thank heavens. And it will also be the reason why it will always be
easier to "pick on" Christians. They'll forgive. But not so *others*.....of
note, this quote in an article today...
>>>>
"We will not accept less than severing the heads of those responsible," one
preacher at Al Omari mosque in Gaza told worshipers during Friday Prayer,
according to Reuters. Other demonstrators called for amputating the hands of the
cartoonists who drew the pictures"
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2006 12:38:22 -0500
From: kageorge <kageorge1@verizon.net>
Subject: Re: Tolerance.
Dotiran@aol.com wrote:
>In a message dated 2/4/2006 8:16:20 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
>jette@blueyonder.co.uk writes:
>
>
>
>>>>Personally I think that Jesus is bigger than petty vengence - and didn't
>>>>
>>>>
>he
>teach "forgiveness"?
>
>Yes, thank heavens. And it will also be the reason why it will always be
>easier to "pick on" Christians. They'll forgive. But not so *others*.....of
>note, this quote in an article today...
>
>
I hadn't noticed that, actually. There is a very vocal, (evidently) very
powerful sect of so-called "Christians" who preach intolerance, bigotry
and hatred, and *that* is why "picking on Christians" has become
verboten in this country (the whole "Book of Daniel" fiasco being a case
in point, and what started this conversation). So, I disagree
*strongly* with your premise. As for Muslims, violence and hatred in
the context of *any* religion is almost always fundamentally against
that religion's basic tenants. The radical Muslims have hijacked Islam,
just as the radical Christians have hijacked Christianity.
MacGeorge
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2006 12:49:51 -0500
From: Wendy <Immortals_Incorporated@cox.net>
Subject: Re: Tolerance.
John's Laptop says :
<snip many good things>
> If something is printed in a paper in MumbleBeck, Wisconsin does
> a person in Burkaville, Downtown Iran have the right to say
> 'Stop that! I don't like it'.
Speaking as someone from MumbleBeck, Wisconsin ("Home of the Annual
Muskie Wrestling Championship"), I wholeheartedly support the person in
Burkaville's right to *say* 'Stop that! I don't like it'. Of course, I
am free to ignore his opinion and go right on publishing my newspaper.
He has a right to publish his own newspaper with cartoons showing the
citizens of MumbleBeck as atheistic fish wrestlers. I can then say 'Stop
that! I don't like it" and so on and so on. What Mr. Burkaville does not
have a right to do is start firebombing my offices. And I can't firebomb
his.
>Equally can a guy in
> Senatetown, USA decide to bomb The FuriousEthnic Times in
> Jihandtown if he doesn't like their editor?
Maybe the guy in Senatetown will just co-opt the FuriusEthnic Times by
paying its reporters to publish pro-Senatetown articles?
> We DO have to be sensitive to the fact that there is a growth
> in people who take religion *very* seriously... seriously to
> the point that that any criticism or levity aimed in its
> diction is seen as blasphemous and that is seen as carte
> blanche for any retalitaion or action. While that is not
> acceptable in a democracy, the right to have a level of
> respect for religious beliefs should be. It's a balance that
> only works when both sides think about everyone else's rights
> rather than just their own rights. It won't stop some people
> being offended by things that others find acceptable, but it
> does offer perspective.
And there's the rub. What happens if both sides *don't* think about
everyone else's rights? What if one side believes in rights and
free-speech and freedom of (and from) religion and the other side won't
be happy until all the "non-believers" are dead or converted? (And I'm
not just talking radical Muslims here, radical Christians ...and certain
politicians ...have much to answer for too) Does the free-speech side
start pulling back in fear? Does it continue to speak out and risk
physical (versus verbal) attack? We like to talk a good game of " give
me liberty or give me death" but how many of us would actually continue
to say unpopular things when the risk of a firebomb through the window
of home and office became real? When the sound of jackboots in the night
was common? When that crackling on the telephone line was most likely a
wire tap and not a squirrel on the wire?
>("Maybe that's because Jesus doesn't tear
> people's arms out of their sockets when he loses..." )
There was a time when people feared upsetting "Jesus". I think it was
called the Inquisition and lots of arms got pulled out of lots of
sockets. The Crusades? Witch hunts anyone? The KKK? The ability to kill
and maim and oppress in the name of ones' religion isn't limited to
non-Christian faith. There are parts of the Good Ole USofA today where
publishing a cartoon showing Jesus in an unfavorable light could result
in a firebomb through the window.
> Christians, in my experience, can take a joke.
Guess you haven't spent much time in Alabama! (My apologies to all the
fun-loving easy-going joke-loving Christians of Alabama)
My experience is that few people can see the humor in their religion.
Which is too bad since most religions are very funny.
Wendy(Incoming!)
Immortals Inc.
immortals_incorporated@cox.net
"Weasels for Eternity"
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2006 13:54:44 -0600
From: Ginny Gibbs <red57metoo@yahoo.com>
Subject: Holy Ground Threatened By Scottish Godlessness!
Heh - I monitor an archeology blog written by a friend in Germany, and
had to chuckle over this one:
CONSERVATIONISTS are calling on entrepreneurs to take over
Scotland's abandoned churches and turn them into everything from
petrol stations to bars in an effort to save them from ruin.
Hundreds of rural churches and city steeples are under threat from
the country's increasing Godlessness. Dwindling congregation numbers
now pose the largest threat to Scotland's historic character and
must be countered through innovative business planning, say
conservationists.
They pointed to a variety of successful church conversions,
including bars and nightclubs, activity centres and the popular Oràn
Mór arts venue in Glasgow.
The article is at http://news.scotsman.com/scotland.cfm?id=179762006
Darn those Godless Scots! There will soon be no place for an Immortal to
lay his or her head without someone taking it off.
------------------------------
End of HIGHLA-L Digest - 3 Feb 2006 to 4 Feb 2006 - Special issue (#2006-29)
****************************************************************************