posted
So, in my opinion, the right way to earn public acceptance is NOT to say, "I don't care that you think my actions are harmful! You have to deal with them anyway, because I'm here, and I'm not going away! HA HA HA!"
The right way is to compassionately demonstrate that your customs are NOT harmful, and earn people's acceptance by persuading them to agree with you. If we train people to turn OFF their discernment and accept things blindly just because of some ephemeral value that says "we should be accepting", we're essentially morally lobotomizing our society.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I appreciate your thoughts on the matter. They seem to basically support what I was saying. I don't disagree with them, generally, just as I don't think you disagree with me.
Specifically, I just wanted to point out that this statement
quote: You don't have to accept that our faith is true, but I do expect people to recognize a generally stable and benevolent society when they see one.
is idealistic and assumes that everyone is working off the same set of values. Obviously, if people were 'reasonable', a lot of the troubles that Mormons, Jews, Catholics, Atheists, blacks, etc, have gone through in the past wouldn't have happened.
So,
quote: I think that if my religion WERE a harmful thing, I would be wrong (in the sense of being incorrect) to run out and express the worst version of it, wave it in people's faces, and say, "You have to accept this just the way it is, and if you don't, you're a horrible person, and there's something wrong with you!"
given that people work off different sets of values and are not equally reasonable, it's not logical to think that people engaging in a behavior believe they are expressing the 'worst'. If they felt what they were doing was wrong, they wouldn't be doing it.
Any public display of belief/behavior by a group is, inherently, meant to affirm that group's belief that their beliefs are correct. They wouldn't be engaging in that behavior/belief otherwise.
Every group that engages in a public display of belief believes that those who don't agree with them are wrong. In every group there are probably those who think that those who don't agree with them are 'horrible'. edit: However, it would be a mistake to assume that the sole reason a group was engaging in that behavior was to piss people off.
posted
Just chiming in to say that I pretty much echo kat - I don't like the gay pride parades and I don't like mardi gras or spring break spectacles either.
And I wanted to say to janger, very nice apology.
quote:I realized how obnoxious I sounded after posting and reviewing what I had written.
We've all done it. The important thing is you did realize it was obnoxious.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: [quote] So, in my opinion, the right way to earn public acceptance is NOT to say, "I don't care that you think my actions are harmful! You have to deal with them anyway, because I'm here, and I'm not going away! HA HA HA!"
Every group says this.
quote: The right way is to compassionately demonstrate that your customs are NOT harmful, and earn people's acceptance by persuading them to agree with you.
This goes back to people being different.
quote: If we train people to turn OFF their discernment and accept things blindly just because of some ephemeral value that says "we should be accepting", we're essentially morally lobotomizing our society.
No one in this thread has said that people should accept things blindly "because of some ephemeral value that says "we should be accepting". Neither I nor anyone else has said you can't speak out against the so-called extremists in the gay-pride parade.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's a good point to compare Mardi Gras and other such debauchery to some of the raunchier Gay Pride celebrations. If you want to get rid of one, you have to get rid of them all or it isn't fair.
If the homosexual community wants to police itself, it should get on it. If they have no problem with it, the rest of us should probably leave it alone. For one day a year in NO, parents know to keep there kids home because of Mardi Gras. If a gay pride parade has been taking place in a major city for 20 years, the parents should know better and to keep the kids at home if there is something that shouldn't be seen.
If you venture away from home when you know something you don't want to see is out there, you really only have yourself to blame. Personally, I don't really think these public displays are necessary, and they do more to hurt than support their own cause, but if that is what they want, it's theirs to have. I've seen some stuff almost as bad as Mardi Gras at Fourth of July fireworks around the suburbs of Detroit (though not often).
I stay home every year during Halloween and turn off all my lights. I hate Halloween, but I'm not suggesting we get rid of it, even though it's bad for the public good by dispensing sugary treats to a population of children that REALLY doesn't need any more junk food.
It's one day a year, it's here to stay.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Some years ago legendary racer Dale Earnhardt crashed during a race here and died. His autopsy pictures, which are public record in Florida, were placed (or were about to be placed, this is from memory) on a web site run by a local man who wants people to realize how dangerous racing is and publishes autopsy photos of dead racers to make his point.
Teresa Earnhardt moved to stop his publication of those photos, claiming it was an invasion of privacy and an intrusion into the lives of her family. The legislature, uncharacteristically quickly, passed a law taking autopsy photos out of the public record. Several newspapers (and the guy with the website) sued.
I think it was (and is) a shoddy law, passed on emotion instead of reason. I think it puts too many barriers in the process, makes it harder for investigations and medical training and, in the worst case scenario, makes it easy for corrupt judges to block damaging evidence forever. A better method would have been to make distribution of such photos illegal so that anyone who wanted or needed to could go and look at them but couldn't put them online or publish them without permission from the family.
Anyway. During the appeals, the guy with the website was right up front every day. Where the newspapers and other interested parties tried to show that there were good and vital reasons why such photos shouldn't be blocked, this guy was right there, a living, breathing reminder that should the law be overturned he'd have her husband's bloody corpse online within a day.
The appeals failed. Couldn't tell you exactly why, but I'm convinced this guy's presence was a major contributor. He represented the very worst that this law would allow, and he apparently didn't realize or care that he was killing his own cause.
Free speech advocates hate it when Larry Flynt offers his highly visible support. Gay rights advocates clench their teeth when the media insists on showing the hairy guy in the thong. Feminists spent decades trying to live down Andrea Dworkin. The extremists of a group harm the group far more than they help, I think, because then attention focuses on them instead of the more moderate issues.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am gay but I have never attended a pride parade because to me they seem to only highlight the sexual aspects of homosexuality. I think that the gay community is only hurting itself with these parades becasue it is sending across the wrong message. It helps to promote the image that gays are overly sexual and promiscuous which is the image that many of us have fought to correct.
Posts: 7 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wouldn't doubt it. Florida has some of the most open public records laws in the country, and every year special interest groups try to run more bills through the legislature to limit them for their own benefit.
I'm automatically suspicious of any group who wants public records restricted for my own good.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:given that people work off different sets of values and are not equally reasonable, it's not logical to think that people engaging in a behavior believe they are expressing the 'worst'. If they felt what they were doing was wrong, they wouldn't be doing it.
Well, yes, of course people have different values and everyone thinks they're right. But I happen to think that some people who believe they are right (NAMBLA and the KKK among them) are actually NOT right, and rightfully earn the scorn they receive. And (referring to the example I used) were I to represent a group like that, even though I would THINK that I was right, I would deserve similar reactions.
The process of discussion, ideally, should allow people to develop similar or shared values upon which they can build a compromise. So far, in many of our ongoing debates, the only value anyone seems to agree on is, "Physically hurting human beings is bad," and so that has become the unofficial standard of which behaviors should be accepted and which should not. "Is it hurting anyone? No? Then it's cool."
I think people should be allowed to be more discerning than this, and to make judgments based on a more comprehensive set of values. But values are not immutable and eternal. It is possible to persuade people to value things that they once dismissed as unimportant. But you achieve this by persuasion, not by deliberately offending the values you are trying to change.
I'd like to reiterate the distinction between the Gay Pride parade itself and the participants therein. The extreme behavior being discussed here is but a small portion of the parade itself so to condemn the whole event because of a few is short-sighted and reactionary.
The truth is, it's very difficult to draw the line. Who exactly would you exclude? Sure most here would single out the hairy 40 year old in chaps and a thong. What about the drag queens? Many people find them perverse, but they are often very beautiful and usually better dressed and more covered than your average 40 year old woman at the mall. Should all fetish-wear be banned or just the stuff that transgresses indecent exposure laws?
Someone mentioned Dykes-on-Bikes. Should they be banned? Why? Because they aren't pretty women in dresses? Because they challenge someone else's narrow definition of femininity?
What about the really outrageous members of the community that aren't in the official parade, but are there as spectators? Should we ask them to stay home? Who will write up the dress code? If they were asked to stay home, do you think they would?
quote:So, in my opinion, the right way to earn public acceptance is NOT to say, "I don't care that you think my actions are harmful! You have to deal with them anyway, because I'm here, and I'm not going away! HA HA HA!"
The right way is to compassionately demonstrate that your customs are NOT harmful, and earn people's acceptance by persuading them to agree with you. If we train people to turn OFF their discernment and accept things blindly just because of some ephemeral value that says "we should be accepting", we're essentially morally lobotomizing our society.
I agree with you and feel that I have been acting accordingly. The big problem is that when we get right down to specifics I'm probably a lot more accepting (in a considered way) than many on this board and I don't think that means I've been morally lobotomized.
In terms of community solidarity, perhaps this is an internal issue. To the degree that I sympathize with those in the gay community whose behavior I may not condone, I may feel some duty to actually do something to persuade them to tone down their method of delivery so their message (if any) can be heard. However, how many of you Christians on the board have done anything to tone down Reverand Phelps? Don't you have as much responsibility to police his actions in the name of your God as I do to police the leather daddies acting in the name of the Gay political agenda?
At any rate, comparisons to Nambla and the KKK are rather extreme, dontchathink?
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Karl, I hope you're not thinking that I was directly identifying a Gay Pride parade with NAMBLA and the KKK. I was simply using examples of organizations that I knew no one here would dispute are wrong in their philosophies, yet have the legal right to express them. Since I connected them no more strongly to the Gay Pride movement than I did to my own religion, I figured no one would misread my intentions and be offended. Maybe I was wrong?
I'm also not saying that the degree to which someone accepts other cultures indicates the degree to which they've been morally lobotomized My only point was, if we stop allowing people to be discerning in their reactions altogether, that is the euqivalent of a moral lobotomy. For example, while you are more open and tolerant towards alternate sexual lifestyles, I'm betting that you have a stronger negative reaction to anti-gay conservative groups than, say, Janger. You are clearly a discerning observer of these groups. You're just operating from a different set of values or premises than someone else might be.
And I hope you've seen from me that I also oppose the extremists within Christian society (many of whom oppose me right back) who seem more interested in hurting and excluding people than finding workable compromises. You and I are actually on the same side, on the grand scale, even if we sometimes find ourselves in different camps ...
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Geoff, I think we mostly are on the same side. Perhaps my distaste with the Nambla/KKK examples is that the discussion seemed to be forming like this:
"Boy you gays need to tone yourselves down or you should expect people to not take you seriously"
"Well the rowdy crowd are a minority, what can ya do?"
"Well, so are Nambla and the KKK, but I speak out against them and their ideas whenever the subject comes up."
Now I realize that your example was more of an aside than it was in the core discussion of the Gay Pride parade issue. However, when this is your closing paragraph:
quote: Simlarly, people are right to think ill of the obnoxious fringe members of a group, even if the core of that group is actually benign. And it is annoying when the fringe people are so loud and visible that the benign folks are tarnished by the legitimate outrage of onlookers.
somehow I still feel the need to point out that there is a world of difference between someone distastefully dressed and someone promoting pedophilia. I agree with that paragraph and see how it pertains to the discussion at hand. But being the apparent conclusion of the post in which it appears, it read like you were making the comparison.
quote: I'm betting that you have a stronger negative reaction to anti-gay conservative groups than, say, Janger
Probably. But that doesn't mean that I can't try to see beyond my own prejudices and understand where the other side is coming from.
quote: The process of discussion, ideally, should allow people to develop similar or shared values upon which they can build a compromise.
That is true, but in the terms of this discussion, I think this is an internal issue. That is, I think the "people" who need to discuss and develop shared values is the gay community itself. The "problem" of extremists exists in every large group, and is especially pronounced when the group is very loosely defined. But it has to be dealt with from within. Criticism from outside is just as likely to make the group circle the wagons as it is to persuade them to police themselves.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: The process of discussion, ideally, should allow people to develop similar or shared values upon which they can build a compromise.
Sometimes, Geoff. Just because one group has a problem with the beliefs and behavior of another group is *not* sufficient reason in and of itself for the other group to change their behavior, or seek compromise, as you seem to believe. Would you ask churches to compromise their ideals and beliefs just to accommodate non-believers?
quote: So far, in many of our ongoing debates, the only value anyone seems to agree on is, "Physically hurting human beings is bad," and so that has become the unofficial standard of which behaviors should be accepted and which should not. "Is it hurting anyone? No? Then it's cool."
I think people should be allowed to be more discerning than this, and to make judgments based on a more comprehensive set of values.
Again, no one is stopping you from putting forth another set of values. No one is suggesting that you should shut up.
And, of course, I reject the idea that the idea that corporal harm should kind of be the value upon which we base social censure isn't 'discerning'.
quote: But values are not immutable and eternal. It is possible to persuade people to value things that they once dismissed as unimportant. But you achieve this by persuasion, not by deliberately offending the values you are trying to change.
Normalization often doesn't work through persuasion. You and KoM share the belief that logic is a mighty force that always works and that is always an accessible tool to change people's minds and which they should use to deal with reality. I can just see trying to reason with someone that their belief that men kissing is icky isn't true. "Really, sir, it's the most natural thing in the world because of X, Y, and Z." Ha. It almost certainly wouldn't work. People often believe what they believe not because of logic but because of how they perceive the story of the world and their place in it. In order to persuade someone that something that they believe is 'bad' is 'good', something that went against that person's picture of who they are, what was 'normal', I would have to change who they were. Ratiocination alone is usually not going to do this because the person has never seen anything to persuade him that his beliefs are wrong, and even then, that person will only change his mind if their conception of reality and who they are in it is such that it allows that change. Sometimes you just have to show people. This is where doing extreme shite in public comes in.
I look at it like food. Why does one person like some foods and another person hate those same foods? I can talk to someone until I'm blue in the face about how great beer is, but if they juar find the taste of beer really revolting, they ain't buyin' what I'm selling. Likewise, their taste in what is good or bad often isn't going to change through discussion, but maybe I can at least show them that not all beer drinkers are, as they imagine, drunkards and wife beaters. Maybe just by drinking beer in front of that person I can help them see that their perception of reality is false.
You and others seem to believe that showing 'extreme' behaviors only leads to those behaviors being further reviled, yet this is often, dare I say usually, not the case. What often happens is that the more people see certain behaviors being done by regular people, see that these people are just like them and that nothing bad happens when they do those behavior, the more those behaviors are normalized. So, I think if something is to be normalized, you almost have to do it in public, regardless of what other people think.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Humans are irrational, illogical creatures driven by impulse, desire and instinct.
I can provide logical argument after logical argument about why God doesn't exist and the inconsistencies of each belief system.
Yet people believe. Not because they can avail themselves to a higher logic, but because they believe this to be true.
As to the natural issues of normalization, I think Sax is right - people are creatures of habit and something must happen to dislodge the hamster from his wheel.
posted
I want to thank Janger for her (?) apology. I meant to do that several posts ago, but I got sidetracked. Welcome to the forum.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am reminded of a book called After the Dance, often quoted by people on the right, written by a pair of gay men who talk about how gays should try to blend into the mainstream more, pretend to be "normal" and then slowly bring out their differences. I disagree. I think that people have the right, within reason to be themselves. I despise Fred Phelps and his ilk, and as long as they stop doing moronic things like picketing funerals (it's one thing if they wanted to do general picketing, but, to picket the funeral of a pair of dead soldiers, what were they thinking? Have they no morals or sense at all?) they can believe what they want.
I'm confused by normality. Isn't it obvious that not every gay person likes to wear chains and drag people around by leashes?
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
A very wise woman I know had an interesting take on provocative attire. If it is legal for one, it's legal for all. So, the hairy guy in the thong has just as much right as the bronze Adonis striding on the beach. No matter how much the one might offend the sensibilities and the other inspire...
So, I'm in agreement that if a place decides to place limits on the attire worn (or not worn) by people at gay pride events, it will have to set rules for all events.
I'm glad in this thread that we're not debating institutionalize intolerance. At least I think we're not. The point is that if someone is a citizen in good standing, they have all the rights and freedoms of every other citizen. Period.
I've seen, for the most part, people agreeing with this sentiment as well.
So...the real question in my mind is whether there need to be changes to public decency laws or whether the infrequent events that are more likely to offend a greater portion of the population serve some purpose that is also in the public's best interest.
Here, I think I depart from the general run of opinions here. I don't believe, for instance, that the world should be reshaped so that every place at all times is suitable for viewing by children. I don't think it should be zoned that way. I think, in fact, that such an attempt is doomed to failure because the definition of what is "suitable" is not the same for everyone and so we'd have to pick a line that could not be crossed.
That line would be too extreme for most people anyway.
So, local norms are probably just as good a way of handling this as any law ever could be. Seriously, there's probably never going to be a roudy parade in most of the towns I've lived in over the past few years. Oh sure, someone might TRY to put one together, but the locals just didn't bite. Or if the thing did happen, it was sort of a bust (pardon the LACK of a pun) compared to similar events in other places.
The most roudy thing they get in most of these places is some drunken revelry by stupid college kids after their team scores a touchdown in the World Series (or whatever...)
Anyway, back to my point. The idea of passing laws to restrict what is basically an event that pushes the social envelope a bit (or a bit too far for some), is, I believe, a very bad idea for us as a society. Sure, it'd give a bit of comfort to those who are made uncomfortable by the debauchery. But it also makes repression (including sexual repression) the norm. And I think we in America have suffered enough from immature attitudes about things like the sight of a breast (Janet Jackson, the statues in the Justice Department Hall, stupid laws that say a woman can't go topless in the same places a man can). Having a day off from such nonsense is instructive for us in a fairly harmless way, if you think about it. The people who just don't want to think about it can stay indoors, or go away for a day. The ones who need to blow off a little steam get to do it once and it's done.
These bacchanals have served just such a purpose for hundreds of years (if not thousands). It is a tradition that has survived for reasons that are worth thinking about.
quote: Storm, there were times when my people were every bit as hated and mistreated as any homosexual group has been in this nation's history. - puppy
"my people" - so what do you consider the rest of the non Mormon americans?
posted
SBS: I think you're being deliberately inflammatory for no good reason. Clearly he was talking about the historical experience of Mormons and it is a historic fact that the oppression occurred at the hands of other Americans.
Unless you're asking something different and I'm just not seeing it, I think you're just being argumentative for no good reason.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
I'm the idiot without a group of people. All Earthlings are "my people", so the concept of having a specific group of people as "my people" is strange to me, leaving me to wonder, who are what are the people who aren't in the "my people", he's a straight God loving Christian man, I'm a stright God loving Christian man, If I am not part of his "my people" what am I?
I am not down playing the horrible traumas that Latter Day Saints had to endure and overcome to continue to Live a Faith they freely deserve to live.
Posts: 2752 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Clearly he was talking about the historical experience of Mormons and it is a historic fact that the oppression occurred at the hands of other Americans.
Wasn't most of the LDS oppression commited by Christians?
My blood runs like 95% Norwegian and I do believe the Norse Religion was also attempted to be stamped out by Christians.
It seems to be a pattern.
Now the homosexual community is having to endure a modern crusade against them.
Posts: 2752 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: What I was originally trying to get at was the point of anyone, gays or straights, dressing and acting appropriately in public where there are so many youth present.
I can dig that.
And in other news, KarlEd is my hero. Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thor, I think it's possible for someone to identify with their own culture or ethnic group without implicitly slighting everyone outside that group. You know me well enough to know that I'm not one of the narrow-minded, my-way-is-the-only-right-way ethnocentrists that you often meet on the grand old internet Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:For one day a year in NO, parents know to keep there kids home because of Mardi Gras.
Not to detract from this wonderful conversation, I just wanted to correct something real quick.
Mardi Gras is a family event. Whenever I go parades I usually spend a good twenty minutes trying to find a place to stand that has the fewest kids since they're insane competition for throws. Kids in costumes and on top of ladders attend parades from the beginning of the season to the absolute last parade. They're not so much in the more packed areas with bars but go down St. Charles or visit parades on the outskirts and you'll be over-run with kids. And amongst these kids will be some drunken old men and women and the occasional tourist who thinks its appropriate to flash at all parades. Since alcohol is a big part of life in Louisiana, most kids know how to handle the drunks and parents teach their kids a good loathing of tourists so most ignore anyone who isn't a local.
So yeah, just had to defend my holiday. Continue the discussion please.
Posts: 1733 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can't speak for New Orleans and Mardi Gras, but in Brazil at Carnival many Christian families make plans to leave the larger cities and vacation at farms or other retreats specifically to avoid the "evils" of the event. The LDS down there organize many family activities at the local meetinghouses to provide an alternative to the parades and 3-day long parties.
I wouldn't be surprised if there weren't at least a few Christian families in NO who treat Mardi Gras the same way. It's probably not the general poplulace, but I think Lyrhawn's point stands. Those who do want to avoid such things as Mardi Gras, Carnival, Gay Pride, Southern Decadence, etc, generally know to make other plans during those times. If they're offended by the spectacle, they really have no one to blame but themselves.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: If they're offended by the spectacle, they really have no one to blame but themselves.
So if I'm a mother with small kids, it's my fault that if I have to get out and walk somewhere on that day with my kids, they see someone flashing their breasts?
I'm sorry, but while I myself would do just this, KarlEd - keep my kids home, I don't think it's the fault of the parents. If we have come to understand and expect certain of dress in the normal, everyday public life, then when the rules change and those standards are drastically changed, why is it the fault of the person whose doing what they always do, like taking a walk?
And let's not get into the discussion of whether or not a glance of a woman's breast would be "harmful" to a kid, that's not the point. Personally, I would tell my kids "That woman's acting silly and not behaving like she should," and emphasize the behavior, not the nudity because there's nothing inherently wrong with nudity, it's just the situation when and where the nudity occurs. The fact is there are certain standards of decency every community has. We should not be making exceptions for certain people at certain times, if it's not considered decent to walk down the street in chains and a thong on a normal Sunday afternoon, it shouldn't be allowed just because it's a parade day. And that goes for male/female/straight/gay people alike.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd have to disagree, Belle, for pretty much the same reasons that Bob very eloquently put forth. I've got no problem with planned, scheduled, easy-to-avoid days of release and partying for those who enjoy it, and I think they can serve as a valuable social pressure valve.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Belle, If the behavior is legal and has been accepted by the community for years, and everyone knows about it, then yes, you assume full responsibility for what your children might see if you take them there.
quote: if it's not considered decent to walk down the street in chains and a thong on a normal Sunday afternoon, it shouldn't be allowed just because it's a parade day.
That's a matter of opinion. It's illegal to carry an open alcoholic beverage on the street, too, but there are exceptions made for that during festival times as well. Same with dancing in the street. I think "making out" in public is in poor taste and should be avoided, but during the block party at Gay Pride, while I still don't "make out", I will hold Chris closer and might kiss him less chastely that I might on the same street any other time of the year. I'm sure there are people who would be offended by that behavior anywhere it occurred at any time. Those people should stay away from East Eager and Charles streets during Gay Pride weekend.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think any of the egregious public behavior discussed should be illegal. I do, however, reserve the right to think very, very poorly of those who engage in it.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: The fact is there are certain standards of decency every community has. We should not be making exceptions for certain people at certain times, if it's not considered decent to walk down the street in chains and a thong on a normal Sunday afternoon, it shouldn't be allowed just because it's a parade day. And that goes for male/female/straight/gay people alike.
If your point is correct, then the 'community' has said they don't mind the gay pride parades.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: You know me well enough to know that I'm not one of the narrow-minded, my-way-is-the-only-right-way ethnocentrists that you often meet on the grand old internet
Yes, Puppy. You are an EXCELLENT ambassador for your people, so much so that I do feel like one of "your people", even though I'm not Mormon, I do consider us good brothers of Christ.
If I want a dose of the narrow minded my way is the only way, I'll read world watch. Posts: 2752 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
On the topic of normalization, one must remember that normalization can be taken too far.
For examples (and these are extreme ones, but real ones). There was a day in the colonial Americas where there were no slaves held by the colonials and slavery had not been practiced in Europe for centuries (serfdom yes, but slavery no). Then someone decided to reinstitute slavery of the Native Americans.
I'm sure some of the new settlers balked at this, at least at first. But it became the practice. And then someone brought the first shipload of slaves from Africa. And that became the norm, it wasn't a shocking sight.
Something that had been phased out of Western society re-emerged and became accepted and pursued. Eventually it became something that people were willing to die for to protect.
As I said, this is an extreme example, but it does show how something distasteful (and in this case unequivocably wrong) can be normalized, or mainstreamed.
The other side of the coin would be the Civil Rights movement in the US during the 1960s, 70s and even today. Racism, something inherent in the xenophobic species of mankind, is being broken down as relations between racial and ethnic groups are being normalized in our melting pot society. Normalization definitely for the good, at least in my opinion.
The problem is, how do you determine what should and shouldn't be normalized. Normalization requires a breaking of the status quo, obviously, but how does one determine the breaking point?
Once upon a time, the Village People challenged the status quo and their affected stereotypes have pretty much been normalized. Everyone dances when YMCA comes on the loud speakers at any event. But Marilyn Manson doesn't inspire the same goodwill from the public.
How do we, as a society, separate the wheat from the chaff? Or do we just let it all out there and let society accept what it will and let the rest die off naturally or fade into obscurity?
U2 or Madonna? Once upon a time, U2 was just a punk band from Ireland that took a political stance in their music. Nowadays, world leaders have meetings with the group's lead singer... when he speaks the world listens. Once upon a time, Madonna was the hottest star in the world, she had the eye and ear of so many people. Her shock value kept our attention. And then, well, she faded away into hot air and marginalization.
Sorry for rambling, but perhaps normalization is beyond the control of any group. Society will drift as it will.
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: My blood runs like 95% Norwegian and I do believe the Norse Religion was also attempted to be stamped out by Christians.
It seems to be a pattern.
I agree that Christians do have a frequent history of violence through crusades due to its twisted views of truth and reality. But the Christian are also victims to hostility and violence as well. I believe they're called "martyrs". People who through sheer force of will and tenacity, held steadfast to their beliefs, despite torture. Who am I to say that Christianity is right and who is right to say that a particular religion is wrong. All we have to go by is our beliefs, whether it be Christians saying there is an omniscient, omnipotent God, or atheists that declare the opposite. But the message that I am receiving through that quote is that you marginalize all Christians as bloodthirsty conquerors, wanting to run a totalitarian religion system. But I feel this to be as ignorant as I claiming what I did in my original post. The fault with most religions is its conquest for truth. Sure, we've all made mistakes claiming what truth is and is not, and religion and its religious groups are no different. Inevitably, we are all just pawn in the search for a fundamental truth, be it through religion, government, individuals, or fanatical groups. Pope John Paul II apologized for all the mistakes that the Catholic Church had made in the past, through its maxims and endeavors. Like most people, the church is known to make mistakes. What do you expect from humans who are infinitely limited compared to God. Maybe God is telling us the right thing but we, through our limited conscience, are interpreting it all wrong. Personally, I don't believe violence should be ever tolerated. I don't think the Muslims have the right to take "justice" into their own hands all in the name of God. But maybe it's necessary to advance our search for truth. I also don't believe that the world can rely solely on reason. Reason alone leads to superficial truths. Like the late Pope John Paul II said, a human being consists of more than just flesh and blood. We call all attest to that because he have all experienced love, hate, hope, and desolation to varying degrees. Thus, it is foolish to depend on reason alone, but faith must also come into the mix. For more info, look up the Pope's article on Faith and Reason. "What is Truth?". Who knows for sure? Maybe through humanity's physical and spiritual divergent evolution, our different paths will all come together to find this ultimate truth. But then again, maybe it's a false hope on humanity's part. Maybe it doesn't even exist...
Posts: 48 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
The important thing is you did realize it was obnoxious.
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
