HIGHLA-L Digest - 10 Aug 2006 to 11 Aug 2006 (#2006-128)
HIGHLA-L automatic digest system (LISTSERV@lists.psu.edu)
Fri, 11 Aug 2006 22:00:10 -0400
There are 14 messages totalling 632 lines in this issue.
Topics of the day:
1. Living UnGracefully, Until Someone Catches Up With Him (14)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2006 06:56:03 +0200
From: T'Mar <tmar@polka.co.za>
Subject: Re: Living UnGracefully, Until Someone Catches Up With Him
Kaki 4 wrote:
> And not too many years ago "Nothing Sacred" which I loved got
> cancelled apparently due to the Catholic church (or at least some of
> the Catholics)'s objections.
>
Let's not forget the stupid SABC who didn't even run the AAA arc because
of the priest being tempted by the BREW in whichever episode.
Leaving some SA fans confused as to why Duncan suddenly had short hair
and where Richie was. :)
- Marina. ("And I've had so many men before; in very many ways, he's just
one mooooree...."
--
"We must learn to embrace the things we fear." - William
Harcourt; Alien Nation
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2006 23:42:01 -1000
From: Nina Davis <macwestie@hawaii.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Living UnGracefully, Until Someone Catches Up With Him
Rottie whines--
> I forgot, in the PC world,
> Christians are fair game.
Just checking, but is there some reason Christians _shouldn't_ be fair game?
Something special about you?
>Wendy(That Christians in America feel persecuted is a mark of how little
>they comprehend actual religious persecution.)
It's usually simple ignominy. When they feel embarrassed, they cry foul.
It's more of a distraction technique, really. Being asked to defend your
religious doctrine for discussion purposes is hardly akin to losing your
life if caught praying.
Nina (who has another new email addy) (so, dear pals, please note the
change) (yes--both of you) (moving is hellish hard work)
macwestie@hawaii.rr.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2006 11:36:55 +0100
From: John Mosby - Laptop <a.j.mosby@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: Living UnGracefully, Until Someone Catches Up With Him
Nina, ever the diplomat-in-training, makes the exact opposite point she
intends to (maybe?) by simply using the generic generalisation 'they' and
therefore inferring all Christians behave the same way and only feel they're
persecuted/generalised.
Rottie's asked that the Jesus name isn't used in vain (it might not have
been in this case, but I have to admit the first time I saw 'Barbecuing
Jesus' phrase I too thought it was too).
In future, I don't think that's an unreasonable a request - to not
deliberately use religious language that we know offends anyone here.
Doesn't really affect anybody's right to express their thoughts, opinions
etc. Anybody called Jesus, of course, gets a get-out-of-jail free exemption.
If Rottie can agree to have a harder skin then I'm sure posters won't
deliberately set out to bait her. If they do, then they kind of make her
point already.
Me? I think most religions worth their weight in faith are funny and sturdy
enough to face any kind of debate. Doesn't mean I deliberately throw rocks.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Nina Davis" <macwestie@hawaii.rr.com>
To: <HIGHLA-L@LISTS.PSU.EDU>
Sent: Friday, August 11, 2006 10:42 AM
Subject: Re: [HL] Living UnGracefully, Until Someone Catches Up With Him
> Rottie whines--
>> I forgot, in the PC world,
>> Christians are fair game.
>
> Just checking, but is there some reason Christians _shouldn't_ be fair
> game? Something special about you?
>
>
>>Wendy(That Christians in America feel persecuted is a mark of how little
>>they comprehend actual religious persecution.)
>
> It's usually simple ignominy. When they feel embarrassed, they cry foul.
> It's more of a distraction technique, really. Being asked to defend your
> religious doctrine for discussion purposes is hardly akin to losing your
> life if caught praying.
>
> Nina (who has another new email addy) (so, dear pals, please note the
> change) (yes--both of you) (moving is hellish hard work)
> macwestie@hawaii.rr.com
>
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2006 04:22:05 -0700
From: Pat Lawson <plawson@webleyweb.com>
Subject: Re: Living UnGracefully, Until Someone Catches Up With Him
Mosby wrote:
>In future, I don't think that's an unreasonable a request - to not
>deliberately use religious language that we know offends anyone here.
No one did and yet Rottie took offense.
Are we to self-censor every post with an eye toward whether it might
disturb the more sensitive among us? If so, let's kill the list instead,
for it will no longer be what it's always been.
Pray tell, how are we to know what constitutes "religious language" which
might offend someone here?
Pat L.
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.10.9/416 - Release Date: 8/10/2006
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2006 07:29:21 -0400
From: Judy Schneider <judyas77@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Living UnGracefully, Until Someone Catches Up With Him
>From: Nina Davis <macwestie@hawaii.rr.com>
>
>Rottie whines--
>> I forgot, in the PC world, Christians are fair game.
>
>Just checking, but is there some reason Christians _shouldn't_ be fair
>game? Something special about you?
>
Only that no other religion seems to get the same pot shots as Christians.
That was part of the point Christians were making in the discussion about
"Book of Daniel". Christians get made fun of an awful lot in our society.
Why don't we make fun of Islam? Buddhism? Judaism??
>>Wendy(That Christians in America feel persecuted is a mark of how little
>>they comprehend actual religious persecution.)
>
As a devout Christian, I don't feel persecuted, but I do get tired of all
the snarky comments about Christians. And, I feel obliged to point out that
there are various "flavors" of Christianity, and we don't all have the same
beliefs, and shouldn't necessarily be all lumped together.
Also, as a devout Christian, I find the casual use of the name of the God
that I worship to be offensive, although I rarely post about it. I'm fairly
certain that if someone posted something using racial slurs or epithets,
they'd be jumped on by many people with lots of feet. Why is it that we seem
to feel it's OK to offend someone who is religious, but it's not OK to
offend someone who may have a different skin color or belong to a particular
ethic group. Personally, I find the comments I consider blasphemous more
painful than racial slurs. No, I do not think racial slurs are acceptable,
but neither are comments that religious people find blasphemous.
>It's usually simple ignominy. When they feel embarrassed, they cry foul.
>It's more of a distraction technique, really. Being asked to defend your
>religious doctrine for discussion purposes is hardly akin to losing your
>life if caught praying.
>
Well, not all Christians react this way.
Judy, the Chocolate Slayer judyas77@hotmail.com
"I never met a chocolate I didn't like"--Deanna Troi
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2006 12:41:39 +0100
From: John Mosby - Laptop <a.j.mosby@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: Living UnGracefully, Until Someone Catches Up With Him
I'm saying that:
if we have a Buddhist and someone says 'Holy Big Fat Buddha , it's been a
terrible day!'
if we have a Christian and someone says 'Jesus Christ, I'm f'ing knackered!'
if we have a Muslim and someone says " Sweet Allah on a pogo-stick...'
...then it's potentially inflammatory and at least unthinking. In this case,
there WAS a guy called Jesus, so it's largely irrelevant and somewhat of a
misudnerstanding, but in general I'm saying there's a decent rule of thumb.
It's not saying that people shouldn't debate religion, express any opinion
they want, argue their position or bring up any subject matter in a
reasonable way. It's simply like I point out to my friends: if they're
visiting my parents (who prefer not to here swearing) I ask my friends to
mind their language so that everyone has fun. Most people, within obvious
parameters, don't see a problem with that or complain their freedom of
speech is being impinged.
I'm saying Rottie has to understand that not everyone thinks like her but
that there's plenty of room for compromise and common-ground But baiting
people by way of their religious beliefs is pretty childish too and I'm more
worried when people do that deliberately to needle someone than when someone
asks for simply general care and attention to the use of phrasing.
I come here to discuss Highlander and discuss/argue/ make my point on other
topics in lively fashion. I have no interest in specifically pissing off or
getting a rise out of fellow posters simply to pass the time (though in
recent times, I may be becoming a minority). If we have simple, common-sense
rules of politeness, it just makes more sense.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Pat Lawson" <plawson@webleyweb.com>
To: <HIGHLA-L@LISTS.PSU.EDU>
Sent: Friday, August 11, 2006 12:22 PM
Subject: Re: [HL] Living UnGracefully, Until Someone Catches Up With Him
> Mosby wrote:
>
>>In future, I don't think that's an unreasonable a request - to not
>>deliberately use religious language that we know offends anyone here.
>
> No one did and yet Rottie took offense.
>
> Are we to self-censor every post with an eye toward whether it might
> disturb the more sensitive among us? If so, let's kill the list instead,
> for it will no longer be what it's always been.
>
> Pray tell, how are we to know what constitutes "religious language" which
> might offend someone here?
>
> Pat L.
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.10.9/416 - Release Date: 8/10/2006
>
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2006 09:28:52 -0400
From: kageorge <kageorge1@verizon.net>
Subject: Re: Living UnGracefully, Until Someone Catches Up With Him
John Mosby - Laptop wrote:
> If Rottie can agree to have a harder skin then I'm sure posters won't
> deliberately set out to bait her.
When did Rottie agree to anything?
Sorry, but if someone (Rottie or anyone else) says something terminally
ignorant, bigoted, or displaying an utter contempt for the fundamental
values of free speech, then I'll say something. I don't care what her
skin texture is like.
> If they do, then they kind of make her point already.
I'm not sure what that means. Frankly, if someone acts like their
personal belief system trumps anyone else's, and no one calls them on
it, then her point stands unchallenged. Politeness is fine, and I'm all
for that, but this particular brouhaha had nothing to do with
politeness. It was a *manufactured* offence. *That* was what bothered
the heck out of me.
MacGeorge
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2006 10:06:24 EDT
From: Dotiran@aol.com
Subject: Re: Living UnGracefully, Until Someone Catches Up With Him
In a message dated 8/11/2006 9:29:59 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
kageorge1@verizon.net writes:
>>>It was a *manufactured* offence. *That* was what bothered
the heck out of me.
Truth is, I didn't realize the spammer dude was named Jesus. I read the
exclamatory phrase as it stood. My mistake. But of course the slew of
defamatory and vitriolic insults that followed my comment......*most* enlightening.
Scripture would give me only one response to those. "Bless you."
[all those not wanting to be blessed may now say phooey patootie and take a
quick shower. It'll wash off, promise.]
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2006 10:23:52 -0400
From: kageorge <kageorge1@verizon.net>
Subject: Re: Living UnGracefully, Until Someone Catches Up With Him
Dotiran@aol.com wrote:
>
>In a message dated 8/11/2006 9:29:59 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
>kageorge1@verizon.net writes:
>
>
>
>>>>It was a *manufactured* offence. *That* was what bothered
>>>>
>>>>
>the heck out of me.
>
>Truth is, I didn't realize the spammer dude was named Jesus. I read the
>exclamatory phrase as it stood. My mistake.
>
Of course, if you had acknowledged that right away, it would have saved
a lot of bandwidth. But the fact that you didn't and let the
conversation continue unabated ... well, that speaks for itself. And
I'll take anyone's blessing, always, whether sincere or not.
MacG
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2006 10:44:51 -0400
From: Wendy <Immortals_Incorporated@cox.net>
Subject: Re: Living UnGracefully, Until Someone Catches Up With Him
Pat asked:
> >Just checking, but is there some reason Christians
> _shouldn't_ be fair game? Something special about you?
Judy answers:
> Only that no other religion seems to get the same pot shots
> as Christians.<snip>
I can think of a number of reasons why this is true in America (the only
place I can speak of with any authority). Christianity- in all its
flavors- is the big dog on the street and has been for 400+ years. It is
the unofficial established Church of America and as such is the most
common target for anti-establishment jokes. We (most of us) are
intimately familiar with Christianity and, therefore, are in a position
to make jokes - we know the rituals, we know the quirks, we know the
history. Making fun of Christians is like making fun of your loony
great aunt - not always nice but almost irresistible. The more
self-righteous the target becomes, the more irresistible the urge to
puncture.
> Why don't we make fun of Islam? Buddhism? Judaism??
Buddhism is too "foreign" to most Americans and so it's harder to joke
about. I'm confident that in countries with large numbers of Buddhists,
there is a thriving Buddhist-humor industry.
I went to a junior high school that was over 50% Jewish and, trust me,
there were plenty of jokes. Some cruel and truly anti-Semitic but mostly
just jokes about the same things people joke about with Christians -
"silly" rituals, "funny" dietary laws, truly bad fashion statements,
etc. And, if you try, I think you'll remember a dozen or more jokes at
Jewish peoples expense that are so mainstream that no one thinks twice
about them. Jokes about money come to mind......
Islam? We used to make fun of Islam until they started killing people
for the offense - makes them less funny these days. Kind of like making
fun of Christians back in the good old days of the Crusades and
Inquisition and the Salam witch trials. I think Islam should be fair
game too - laughing at it is healthier than cowering in fear while
dumping your hand lotion at the airport.
Me:
>>>(That Christians in America feel persecuted is a mark
> of how little they comprehend actual religious persecution.)
Judy:
> As a devout Christian, I don't feel persecuted, but I do get
> tired of all the snarky comments about Christians.
Yeah, and I get tired of lawyer jokes. And fat people get tired of fat
jokes. And Minnesotans get tired of dumb Swede jokes. And Californians
get tied of fruitcake jokes. And librarians get tired of mousey women
jokes. And Republicans get tired of Bush jokes. And Democrats get tired
of Ted Kennedy jokes.
>And, I feel obliged to point out that there are various "flavors" of
Christianity,
> and we don't all have the same beliefs, and shouldn't necessarily be
all lumped together.
You're right. A joke about Southern Baptists should be specific, as
should jokes about Catholics, Anglicans, Lutherans or Snake-handling
Pentecostals. Saying "Christians" is sloppy. Sadly, we live in a sloppy
world. The good thing is, when you hear a joke about non-specific
"Christians", you can ignore it because you, specifically, don't do or
believe whatever is being made fun of.
> Also, as a devout Christian, I find the casual use of the
> name of the God that I worship to be offensive, although
> I rarely post about it. I'm fairly certain that if someone
> posted something using racial slurs or epithets,
> they'd be jumped on by many people with lots of feet.
I think, for most people at least, there is a real difference between a
racial slur and taking someone's Lord's name in vain ( which is
blasphemy) . A racial slur is usually directed at a person or persons (
"Frank is a low class dirty ********"). "My God, that car is beautiful"
" is an exclamation not intended to hurt the individual feelings of
anyone. Blasphemy is a "crime" against a belief system - a belief
system that is not universal. To enforce rules against blasphemy, you
are asking that people of all religions (or of no religion at all) obey
your religious prohibitions. That's akin to Jews asking that no bacon be
sold in the USA because they might have to sit next to someone who is
eating it. Or Hindus calling for the immediate halting of all beef
sales because killing cows is taboo. Jews and Hindus must tolerate
Christians eating bacon cheeseburgers and Christians must tolerate
people saying "Holy Mother of God!" in public.
> Why is it that we seem to feel it's OK to offend someone who is
religious, but it's
> not OK to offend someone who may have a different skin color or belong
> to a particular ethic group. Personally, I find the comments I
consider
> blasphemous more painful than racial slurs. No, I do not think racial
slurs
> are acceptable, but neither are comments that religious people find
blasphemous.
I really do think it has to do with the intent behind the words - and
the intent behind the attempted prohibition against using the words. We
frown on racial slurs because a person has no choice as to their race
and because we strive for a society where race doesn't matter. We aim
for a colorblind country. In a way, the casual use of what you consider
blasphemy is the same thing. In America, your religion or lack thereof
isn't suppose to matter. We are, supposedly, a secular country. Asking
people to refrain form using certain words because they offend your
religious sensibilities is to place your religion above everyone
else's.
John says:
>It's simply like I point out to my friends: if they're
>visiting my parents (who prefer not to here swearing) I
>ask my friends to mind their language so that everyone
> has fun. Most people, within obvious parameters, don't
> see a problem with that or complain their freedom of
speech is being impinged.
And if I were in your home, I would abide by your rules. I would not
swear in front of your mother. I wouldn't go into Judy's home and make
Jesus jokes. I wouldn't go into my Jewish neighbor's home and laugh at
the mezuzah by the door. But this List is no one's "home". It is a
public forum . . . so the more lax general rules of conduct apply. I
think any of us would quickly object to someone saying "All Christians
are closed-minded sanctimonious mouth breathers," Ad hominem attacks
have always been bad form here. I don't think, however, that anyone
should be sanctioned for saying "My God, "The Source" was wonderful" or
"Christ, that movie sucked". I don't think we, all adults, have to
resort to the euphemisms or minced words of childhood. Gadzooks! Jimmy
Cricket! Egad! Cripes! Suffering succotash! By gum! These phrases do not
make society more polite or less coarse, they just make adults sound
like 5 year olds.
John:
>I come here to discuss Highlander
Then by all means, *please* do so! Any info on "The Source"? A release
date? Where it is right now- editing, CGI., the wastebasket at
Lionsgate?
> If we have simple, common-sense rules of politeness, it just makes
more sense.
I'm in favor of common sense rules of politeness- if we could agree on
what those were. My experience with the matter, however, is that "common
rules of politeness" usually ends up meaning "Y objects to X, therefore
Z can't say that."
Wendy(And the use of symbols, as in f#@k, annoys me too.)(Although I
have been guilty of doing it.)(Proving I can be "polite" if
necessary.)(And what about using G-d?)(Does anyone think an omnipotent,
omniscient God couldn't catch on to that little trick?)
Immortals Inc.
immortals_incorporated@cox.net
"Weasels for Eternity"
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2006 15:59:39 +0100
From: Jette Goldie <jette@blueyonder.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Living UnGracefully, Until Someone Catches Up With Him
From: "Judy Schneider" <judyas77@hotmail.com>
> >From: Nina Davis <macwestie@hawaii.rr.com>
>>
>>Rottie whines--
>>> I forgot, in the PC world, Christians are fair game.
>>
>>Just checking, but is there some reason Christians _shouldn't_ be fair
>>game? Something special about you?
>>
> Only that no other religion seems to get the same pot shots as Christians.
> That was part of the point Christians were making in the discussion about
> "Book of Daniel". Christians get made fun of an awful lot in our society.
> Why don't we make fun of Islam? Buddhism? Judaism??
Oh yup, it was so funny to see all those Halloween costumes of
"Muslim Bombers". Every one knows that every Muslim they meet
has a bomb under their robe.
And I see they're remaking "The Wicker Man" - but this time the
Pagans are the villains?
Jette Goldie
jette@blueyonder.co.uk
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2006 21:02:02 +0200
From: T'Mar <tmar@polka.co.za>
Subject: Re: Living UnGracefully, Until Someone Catches Up With Him
Wendy wrote:
> Buddhism is too "foreign" to most Americans and so it's harder to joke
> about. I'm confident that in countries with large numbers of Buddhists, there is a thriving Buddhist-humor industry.
A Zen Buddhist went up to a hot dog vendor and said, "Make me one with
everything."
- Marina. (I'm really sorry.)
"What about the fact they thought we were gay?"
"Adds mystery." - Wesley and Angel; "Expecting" (Angel)
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2006 20:02:54 +0100
From: Jette Goldie <jette@blueyonder.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Living UnGracefully, Until Someone Catches Up With Him
From: "T'Mar" <tmar@polka.co.za>
> Wendy wrote:
>> Buddhism is too "foreign" to most Americans and so it's harder to joke
>> about. I'm confident that in countries with large numbers of Buddhists,
>> there is a thriving Buddhist-humor industry.
>
> A Zen Buddhist went up to a hot dog vendor and said, "Make me one with
> everything."
>
> - Marina. (I'm really sorry.)
OK, I was waiting for that one.
Jette Goldie
jette@blueyonder.co.uk
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2006 21:29:55 +0200
From: T'Mar <tmar@polka.co.za>
Subject: Re: Living UnGracefully, Until Someone Catches Up With Him
>OK, I was waiting for that one.
It's a dirty job, but somebody's got to do it!! :)
I actually had a child in one of my Life Orientation classes who did his
comparative religion project on Buddhism and he had pages of jokes
like that. Of course, that's the only one I can remember. :)
- Marina.
--
"A person needs new experiences. They jar something deep inside,
allowing him to grow. Without change, something sleeps inside
us... and it seldom awakens. The sleeper must awaken." - from
the movie DUNE
------------------------------
End of HIGHLA-L Digest - 10 Aug 2006 to 11 Aug 2006 (#2006-128)
***************************************************************