quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: brides who have necklines too low on their wedding dresses.
How do they know this before the bride shows up at the church? I'm imagining some very interesting scenes here.
They actually had (have?) a lady that would inspect the dress and ensure it met their modesty standards. You had to meet with her before the wedding. I know this because my friends considered getting married there (it's a lovely church) and they get a 3-page copy of the "wedding rules" when they went by the Church office. Among them was specific rules for neckline, hemline, exposed shoulders (a no go), Negroes (they were allowed to marry there, but only to others of "their own kind"), Lutherans, etc. It was rather bizarre.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: And I would agree with you that this historically in AMERICA that has not happened. That doesn't make the concern less valid. The more "politically correct" society becomes, the less "tolerant" society will be towards religion. Historically that HAS happened in other nations in the world. The Roman empire comes to mind.
The Roman Empire slaughtered Christians out of a desire for political correctness?
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:And I would agree with you that this historically in AMERICA that has not happened. That doesn't make the concern less valid. The more "politically correct" society becomes, the less "tolerant" society will be towards religion. Historically that HAS happened in other nations in the world. The Roman empire comes to mind.
Those most concerned about this sort of thing would seem to have a pretty...flexible...interest in what happens in other nations, wouldn't they? If we're going to say, "This is what happens over here if you do this..." I mean. But anyway, I can't help but reject your comparison to the Roman Empire of all things as needing much more work from you before it becomes anything other than totally unworkable. Just for starters, which Roman Empire do you refer to?
quote:I should point out also that the Civil Rights Act only considers a denial of service based on race, color, religion, or national origin. Sexual Orientation is not included in that YET. Many states have their own laws that prevent discrimination based on sexual orientation, however on the federal level it currently DOES NOT. Some states (Nevada being one of them) have even instituted another protected class based on genetic disposition.
You're bringing up other concerns here. My point was simply to illustrate that the 'they'll force churches to marry homosexuals!' was simply naďve at best and outright dishonest at worst, because there are still churches now that refuse to marry interracial couples in spite of whatever state they live in, with no signs of this changing-so my question would be 'why is homosexual marriage going to be different?'
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I love how we've demonized politeness, kindness, and equality by sneering at it as "political correctness" (don't forget the scare quotes!). Yes, not serving someone because they are gay is "politically incorrect" but so is not serving someone because they are Mormon or old.
There was a time when there were many openly racist churches in the US. "Political correctness" made that unacceptable and, sure, people are intolerant of such views now. The result wasn't the diminishment of religion though. It was the evolution of religion into a kinder, more egalitarian institution. AND the more backward churches can still practice their racist ways if they so desire. I don't see why intolerance of anti-gay bigotry should turn out any differently.
posted
It won't, most likely. And in fact (though Lyrhawn could speak to this much better than I could, I think), if you look at some of the objections/hysterical fear-mongering that took place over the generations long civil rights struggle, you'll find an awful lot of parallels in some of the rhetoric.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
It is pretty common knowledge that many religions were oppressed based on what the Roman Empire (government) deemed to be immoral, unjust, or against the goal of "unity." The senate's efforts to restrict the Bacchanals comes to mind, or when Roman Empire adopted Christianity and labeled all other religions as "pagan." A number of times Rome went so far as to confiscate or destroy temples, shrines, and revenues for non-compliance.
Matt,
Politeness, kindness, and equality are all things we should strive and work towards. Political correctness is not the same. The way political correctness is used in America in the modern day is more reminiscent of Antonio Gramsci than Jesus Christ. That is, as a weapon.
Back on topic and just to re-state my point.. The church can certainly voice its opinion to its members and the public, but I don't think they should get involved monetarily or by telling their members how to vote. I'd go one step further and say that anyone in a leadership position on the local level should be released from that position if they are telling the members of their congregation how to vote. (Bishops, Stake Presidents, Area Presidents)
I'm fine with gays being able to marry. There are numerous state and federal laws that need to change prior to that though if you want to avoid any charges of discrimination taking place. Though many states have laws that prevent workplace discrimination for homosexuals for example, many of these states do not provide the same protection for housing.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:The way political correctness is used in America in the modern day is more reminiscent of Antonio Gramsci than Jesus Christ. That is, as a weapon.
The term (again, usually with scare quotes) is used as a weapon primarily by those opposed to something which they perceive to be a manifestation of it. It's rare for someone to say something like "it's not politically correct to call a gay person a fag" if they oppose usage of that term - they'll just say it's rude. It's the person who wants to keep saying "fag" that evokes political correctness in their opposition to intolerance for their position.
Maybe you have a legitimate beef with one of these situations, but discarding it by labeling it as "political correctness" is a cop-out from actually explaining your position.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
There should be an award for most tortured Hatrack comparison. I've seen a lot, but a theocratic Christian Roman state as an example of "political correctness" has got to be up there.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
It is pretty common knowledge that many religions were oppressed based on what the Roman Empire (government) deemed to be immoral, unjust, or against the goal of "unity." The senate's efforts to restrict the Bacchanals comes to mind, or when Roman Empire adopted Christianity and labeled all other religions as "pagan." A number of times Rome went so far as to confiscate or destroy temples, shrines, and revenues for non-compliance.
Why this merits a special example of political correctness in the Roman Empire (this sort of thing also happened in the Republic, btw), because it was hardly shy about oppressing people and institutions or even outright destroying them for various reasons or even sometimes in simple envious pique. In fact the Roman Empire is often held to be a pretty tolerant entity for the time, though the truth is considerably more jaded and complicated than that.
quote:Politeness, kindness, and equality are all things we should strive and work towards. Political correctness is not the same. The way political correctness is used in America in the modern day is more reminiscent of Antonio Gramsci than Jesus Christ. That is, as a weapon.
Of course like any concept in human hands it can be misused. But, you know, while you're complaining about political correctness being used as a weapon, I can't help but hear many others more conservative and less considerate than yourself making exactly the same complaint. Except whereas I take your well meaning at face value, when others make this complaint it's a transparent attempt to simply avoid criticism for saying something prejudiced whether it's against homosexuals, women, men, minorities, or other groups. Surely you can agree that this happens too. Often immediately after someone says or does something that they did not intend, consciously, to express some sort of prejudice but which does, when examined, actually reveal a prejudice even if it was unintended.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
You would be correct that complaints about "political correctness" is often used to justify demeaning behavior, or even bullying of a person or a group of people. It happens all of the time.
Would you agree however that there are times that political correctness is used to curtail free speech? I mean for heaven's sake the city of Seattle put out a memo last year urging employees not to use the words "brown-bag lunch" or "citizen" because it could be offensive to some people. Halloween can't be celebrated in some schools because it is "too religious." Some schools have "Spring Sphere Hunts" because "Easter Eggs" are too religious.
Surely you can agree that at times political correctness is used in meaningless, ridiculous ways?
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:The “spring sphere” story was recounted to a Seattle radio station by a 16-year-old volunteer at the school who wouldn’t give her last name or the name of the school in question. She claims she was handing a kid an Easter egg filled with candy. “They said I could do it as long as I called the treats ‘spring spheres.’ I couldn’t call them Easter eggs,” she explained. Which has either prank or media studies project written all over it. Meanwhile, a Seattle school board spokesperson says that they have been looking into the incident, and can’t find proof that it happened or that any of their schools are using the term “spring sphere.” So this is kind of like that insane “freedom fries” movement of 2001. Only probably not real.
quote:I mean for heaven's sake the city of Seattle put out a memo last year urging employees not to use the words "brown-bag lunch" or "citizen" because it could be offensive to some people.
This is a great example. Is it really quelling anyone's free speech to ask employees to substitute one innocuous term for one slightly less innocuous term? It may not be a *necessary* substitution but it's hardly a substantive abridgment of speech, particular because while acting as an agent of the government I don't have free speech rights to begin with.
Now, if there were a city ordinance to the same effect that would be a different issue.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
