posted
Ok, though I don't quite agree that's the definition of anarchy, I know what you mean.
quote:Also, what was it about my wording in that fragment that didn't make sense?
Well, since you didn't say what kind of erotic stimulation you were referring to, it suggested that you were against sexual activity, period. I somehow doubt that's what you meant.
quote: seeing plenty of bare breasts on German news stands
One of the most refreshing aspects of Nuremberg and German culture when I was there was the extremely low key aspect of capitalism. That is, very few ads, signs, schlock and whatnot to mar the cityscape or countryside.
While I do recall a few bare boobies on the newsstands, keep in mind that it wasn't porn and, that, further, there were very few advertisements for anything around and, thus, very few uses of sex to sell things, and sex wasn't really in your face all the time, as it is here, despite the fact that nudity was....
There was porn and strip clubs, but you had to know where they were.
It's really interesting to me how capitalism is so intertwined with so much of American culture. It's difficult for we Americans, I think, to realize the effect that has on our society.
Not that I'm advocating socialism, but I have to admit that Germany was much better looking to me than America.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Germany's one of the largest (and most capitalistic) state economies in the world, so I'm inclined to think what you saw had little to do with capitalism or socialism and lots to do with how Germans respond to advertisements.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was living in Stuttgart at the time, and actually it was pornography. I'm sure Nuremberg is a city with a very different character.
To put the statement back in context though, I was only saying that porn was very much available in the West.
Posts: 1762 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don'y think porn is ever going to be banned in the US is because there is no way the government is ever going to want to spend the money to enforce such laws.
I don't think stores like Royal Farms should be allowed to put the magazines in the middle of the store though. I agree on what others said earlier. I support the right to use it, and I support other's rights not to be exposed to it.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Germany's one of the largest (and most capitalistic) state economies in the world, so I'm inclined to think what you saw had little to do with capitalism or socialism and lots to do with how Germans respond to advertisements.
This goes back to the point I mentioned the other day. Capitalism--economics-- are worked out through culture and law, and you can't really seperate them.
My impression of Germany is that the ideal is not 'capitalism', like it is in America. That is, business, the market, did not reign supreme in Germany. I am willing to bet that a large part of the reason there weren't big-ass billboards all over the place is because there are laws preventing them.
I wasn't trying to say that capitalism didn't exist in Germany.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nuremberg is a major cultural centre and a tourist hot spot. Most other German cities have their fair share of billboards by European standards, and yes, the Europeans are touchier about public advertising.
Posts: 1762 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Business doesn't reign supreme in the US or anywhere in the sense you seem to be talking about, so I'm not sure what your point is.
We have laws preventing bill boards from being placed in lots of places, and regulating their size and the like, for instance, so if that makes business not supreme in Germany it makes business not supreme in the US.
Also, a founding principle of modern economics is that individual utility -- which is heavily influenced by culture -- drives markets. Economists are extremely comfortable with economic systems reflecting cultural norms.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: We have laws preventing bill boards from being placed in lots of places, and regulating their size and the like, for instance, so if that makes business not supreme in Germany it makes business not supreme in the US.
It seems to me that, inasmuch as placing billboards where business wants (respecting private property) reflects being 'business friendly' and a hands-off approach to business by the state, this would seem to be more capitalist than placing restrictions on billboards by the state.
The more restrictions on billboards, the less 'capitalist' a society would be, in that one respect.
quote: Also, a founding principle of modern economics is that individual utility -- which is heavily influenced by culture -- drives markets. Economists are extremely comfortable with economic systems reflecting cultural norms.
posted
The issue I take is with the qualitative rather than quantitative difference you ascribed between the US and Germany. You said that it does reign supreme in the US and does not in Germany, but now you're saying that business just has a free-er hand (I would say, property rights are stronger; many of the people selling use of space for billboards are private property owners) in the US compared to Germany, which is a very different thing.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I retract my statement about business supremeness in the U.S. or Germany, and default back to my previous statement that is was more low key (from my perspective) in Germany.
Does that sound better?
Thanks, by the way, for bearing with someone who is obviously an economic ignoramus.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I read this thread right after I read the Jesus Camp thread. And, with the Christmas season upon us, it has led to some thinking about personal and public space issues.
777 said this:
quote: Which is the crucial factor. Many people (myself included) just don't want to hear, see, or have anything to do with porn. By forcing that on us by surrounding us with it, you are forcing me to take part in something that I just don't want to do. The purpose of "drawing the line" is to prevent this from happening.
God help someone who feels this way about religious beliefs that are anathama to them during the month of December! If by surrounding someone with something we are forcing them to take part in it (and I think that to an extent we are) non-Christians have every right to feel put upon this time of year. It is a whole lot easier to avoid porn than it is to avoid Christmas. Yet some of us Christians see any attempt to limit this exposure as an attack on our way of life.
Some reasonable things were said in this thread about public vs private space. I guess my feeling is that in the public arena, we all could use more tolerance in what exposure we have to endure and more empathy for those who are forced to endure the things that we force on them.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: You don't like it? Fine. Its constitutionally protected to a certain degree, so unless you're going to get an amendment passed, you're going to have to live with it (edit: or more properly, live with other people living with it), and there are far better things to be focusing your attention on, even with regard to the same problems.
Where are you getting this from? I'm merely trying to objectively consider the possibility that exposure to porn has an effect on ones brain, that can possibly manifest itself as an altered personality.
I'm not trying to suggest that porn is some incredibly powerful force that makes all who encounter it a rapist.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
But to that affect, anything we're exposed to alters our personality. When I watch cop shows I wonder about being a cop, when I watch crime movies I wonder how well I'd be able to pull off a bank heist. It's just imagination.
However, say, if you play GTA and then go shoot and kill people while stealing cop cars, there was something more seriously wrong with you than just being exposed to the wrong form of entertainment.
Posts: 340 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:God help someone who feels this way about religious beliefs that are anathama to them during the month of December! If by surrounding someone with something we are forcing them to take part in it (and I think that to an extent we are) non-Christians have every right to feel put upon this time of year. It is a whole lot easier to avoid porn than it is to avoid Christmas. Yet some of us Christians see any attempt to limit this exposure as an attack on our way of life.
As far as the ubiquitous nature of Christmas, I honestly think non-Christians just need to do their best to ignore it, if they really don't like it. If I had been born in Iraq, and raised exactly the same way I was here, would it be right for me to expect all of Iraq to change to suit my sensibilities? Nations are the way they are. America is overwhelmingly Christian, not that it matters anyway, as the big parts of Christmas these days are rather secular.
I despise Halloween, but I don't expect people to stop trick or treating just because I don't like it.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Gecko: But to that affect, anything we're exposed to alters our personality. When I watch cop shows I wonder about being a cop, when I watch crime movies I wonder how well I'd be able to pull off a bank heist. It's just imagination.
However, say, if you play GTA and then go shoot and kill people while stealing cop cars, there was something more seriously wrong with you than just being exposed to the wrong form of entertainment.
Hence "viewer discretion is advised." and in the video game arena we are seeing stricter rules on what games can be played by certain age demographs.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:God help someone who feels this way about religious beliefs that are anathama to them during the month of December! If by surrounding someone with something we are forcing them to take part in it (and I think that to an extent we are) non-Christians have every right to feel put upon this time of year. It is a whole lot easier to avoid porn than it is to avoid Christmas. Yet some of us Christians see any attempt to limit this exposure as an attack on our way of life.
As far as the ubiquitous nature of Christmas, I honestly think non-Christians just need to do their best to ignore it, if they really don't like it. If I had been born in Iraq, and raised exactly the same way I was here, would it be right for me to expect all of Iraq to change to suit my sensibilities? Nations are the way they are. America is overwhelmingly Christian, not that it matters anyway, as the big parts of Christmas these days are rather secular.
I despise Halloween, but I don't expect people to stop trick or treating just because I don't like it.
Well then, fill in 'porn' for Christmas or Halloween, and the argument is just as compelling. Nations are the way they are, and right now, for the US, that includes porn. Deal.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Second, it's America, we're allowed to protest whatever we want. You keep saying "Deal" as if people must ALWAYS just accept the way things are. That's fine I suppose, I'm just glad MLK, Malcolm X, Upton Sinclaire, and dozens of others didn't just "Deal" with the problems of their age, they changed them. This isn't in specific reference to Christmas or porn, just in general, people have a right to try and change their surroundings if they want. It won't always work, and I'll disagree with their efforts at time, but "Deal" is insufficient for American society, and thankfully history has shown we DON'T have to settle for it.
As for Christmas, like I said, I think they should do their best to ignore it, Christmas isn't going anywhere, and it won't be legislated away. Furthermore, sales at stores and shiny lights on houses I think are the least of their worries in life. But if they WANT to try and change the system, it's their right. Same thing with porn.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that, for the most part, non-christians do their best. But Santa is as offensive to some people as porn is to some people. If people who want porn banned because they don't "want to see, hear or have anything to do with [it]" could understand that some people don't want to "see, hear, or have anything to do with" things that they think people should just get used to or ignore, they might feel a little empathy for them. And a little more tolerant.
As for your Iraq example, don't you think we should be trying to do better than that?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
My mistake. Substitute Iraq for anything ubiquitous within a nation.
If I was born in Britain and found the monarchy to be offensive.
If I was born in France and hated croissants.
If I was born in Italy and wanted to outlaw marinara.
Kidding aside, seriously, asking a nation to change something that has been around since it's foundation, that the grand, grand majority of the people celebrate, for a minority that only has to deal with seeing a wreath here and there, some lights, and a reindeer display every so often, isn't realistic. They have a right to try, but I disagree with them.
And really, what do they want? I can understand banning Christmas imagery or Christmas sponsored stuff that the state does (though I'm personally all right with all of it), but you can't ban Christmas lights that I want on my front yard. You can't ban the sale of Christmas trees, or holiday sales, or christmas music and movies being played on tv.
I don't see anything inherently immoral or harmful about a giant Santa, not in the same way I do about watching a 100 foot screen projecting hardcore sex in Times Square.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lyrhawn, as you might have noticed, I am not advocating banning or outlawing anything. I am hoping for a little trying-to-imagine-how-the-other-guy feels.
How about a magazine stand in a grocery story with soft porn vs Orthodox Jewish children having to sing "Christ the Saviour is born" in order to participate in school choir?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not going to get into a point counterpoint with you on Christmas vs. porn. I don't see where it would lead.
Nothing is perfect, most situations have loopholes and exceptions. I can see how the "other guy" feels.
I know of an example of a Jewish girl in college who had a concert on (I think it was) Yom Kippur, and emailed them to ask if they could move it, because she had to fast that day. They couldn't because the date was already set, but I think agreed to take into account Jewish days of importance in the future.
I think people need to be reasonable. Banning Santa isn't reasonable (not that I think you are advocating it), but then neither is putting undue stress on a non-Christian by making them choose between not participating and participating in something they really don't want to. It varies on a case by case basis.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Funny, when I lived in Malaysia ALL programing on TV was frozen at 6:50 or so until 7:00 so that the daily Muslim prayer could be broadcast on TV before the sunset. If you turned off the TV you could still hear the prayer from the loudspeakers of every single Mosque.
While perhaps mildly annoying, it was only so because it interrupted what I wanted, not because it was from a religion I didn't believe in. I was perfectly willing to endure it day after day as I knew the majority of the population participated in it and those who were not so faithful as Muslim probably appreciated the reminder to say their prayers.
During Hari Raya or Ramadan our teachers pointed out that the Muslim children in our class were fasting during daylight hours and that we should respect that and not try to offer them food or make fun of them for not being able to eat. It was refreshing to encounter another religion besides Mormonism that encourages fasting.
Once a year we had international day, and since my school had students from MANY MANY countries and every continent, parents would setup booths around the school and religious displays relative to that country were encouraged. Classes were canceled and we spent the day visiting booths. We got cool passports and we got them stamped at every booth. I looked forward to international day the entire year as it meant I would come home having eaten delicious food from more places then I could count, and anything from having Australia's flag painted on my face, to getting small kit of Legos from the Denmark booth.
While I was at that school if you had asked me in choir to sing a Muslim Hymn I would not have objected, I would have had fun doing it, I was not even aware that celebrating other people's beliefs was supposed to be offensive.
edit: Incidentally does anybody know what a certain game from The Netherlands is called. Its a long wooden table with 3 openings. You slide these coined shaped pieces of wood about the size of a can of tuna and you are supposed to slide them through the openings.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It strikes me (especially after reading the post on Germany above) that if the North American culture wasn't so driven by commercialization and commercial interests, we probably could get along together without so much irritation. I think it's the in-your-face-ness of selling products that makes things we dislike harder to avoid.
Good creepy night jammies, I remember some flick where people on the street were followed around by holographic commercial images. *shudder
If you dislike panhandling on the street as it is, just wait to see what the next decade has in store for us.
(*mandatory "Gerroff my lawn!")
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am not trying to say that porn is better than Christmas. I am a big fan of Christmas - less of a fan of porn. I'm glad that you get that I'm not advocating a ban on Santa. I am not sure that we disagree.
All I'm hoping is that the next time someone gets bent out of shape over a school having a holiday party instead of a christmas party or over someone objecting to a publicly funded nativity scene that they remember how much they hate it when they have to see or hear things that are offensive to them. It would be nice if, perhaps, instead of "it has always been like this. We shouldn't have to change for them" some of us might think, "Gee, it must suck to have to endure being surrounded by this stuff for a month".
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: While I was at that school if you had asked me in choir to sing a Muslim Hymn I would not have objected, I would have had fun doing it, I was not even aware that celebrating other people's beliefs was supposed to be offensive.
I agree, but I think there should be a reasonable alternative to those who really do find it offensive. I think singing a song of religious foundation and actually saying a prayer to another God are two different things, but I think a lot of people would disagree with me.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kidding aside, seriously, asking a nation to change something that has been around since it's foundation, that the grand, grand majority of the people consume, for a minority that only has to deal with seeing a magazine here and there, some posters, and a video rack every so often, isn't realistic. They have a right to try, but I disagree with them.
One might also add that Santa—and, indeed, the public celebration of Christmas in its modern form—came along a considerable time after the country was founded. (One might also make an equivalent case for modern porn.) But you, Lyrhawn, seem to be trying to have it both ways, making an argument that Christianity in the U.S. is intrinsically [a] more pervasive and [b] less offensive to others than pornography, while simultaneously refusing to make such an argument.
For what it's worth, I'm behind the position you seem to be advocating roughly half the time: I think they should do their best to ignore it, Christmas and pornography aren't going anywhere, and they won't be legislated away. Furthermore, sales at stores and shiny DVDs I think are the least of their worries in life.Posts: 884 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I am not trying to say that porn is better than Christmas. I am a big fan of Christmas - less of a fan of porn. I'm glad that you get that I'm not advocating a ban on Santa. I am not sure that we disagree.
All I'm hoping is that the next time someone gets bent out of shape over a school having a holiday party instead of a christmas party or over someone objecting to a publicly funded nativity scene that they remember how much they hate it when they have to see or hear things that are offensive to them. It would be nice if, perhaps, instead of "it has always been like this. We shouldn't have to change for them" some of us might think, "Gee, it must suck to have to endure being surrounded by this stuff for a month".
Yeah I think we do agree. And I think it's fair to say there are probably plenty of Christians who hate being surrounded by the Christmasplosion that takes place in some cities this time of year.
I know my mom was thrilled when Wal-Mart changed it's Holiday greeters back to Christmas, and put Christmas back all over the store. There's people on both sides, but I think we can find a happy medium.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I don't see anything inherently immoral or harmful about a giant Santa, not in the same way I do about watching a 100 foot screen projecting hardcore sex in Times Square.
Man, I am never in Times Square when the good stuff happens.
Posts: 884 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
For me (I am a church musician) praying and singing prayers are very much the same. I don't think I could, in good conscience, sing a hymn that expressed things I don't believe. I even have a hard time with various "patriotic" hymns these days.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
See thats exactly whats wrong IMO kmbboots. Why can't be more accommodating to everyone's beliefs? Why should we suppress the majority OR the minority?
I take issue with people who get mad over a "holiday party" being favored over a "Christmas Party" but for the same reason I take issue with folks who say, "Have a holiday party that is completely secular."
You are not celebrating humanity with secularism, you are celebrating religionless society.
Disbelieve religion all you want its still a huge part of society and I do not see religion ever leaving. Not saying you are an atheist or a God hater kmbboots.
But back on the question of pornography. If there was a religion like some of the pagan ones of yesteryear where sexual rites were important to next years crops, I admit I'd be pretty hard pressed to come up with a way to ethically celebrate its existence.
I wish society attempted to celebrate people's religion, rather then say, "Its hard to not favor one, so we should ignore all."
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: While I was at that school if you had asked me in choir to sing a Muslim Hymn I would not have objected, I would have had fun doing it, I was not even aware that celebrating other people's beliefs was supposed to be offensive.
I agree, but I think there should be a reasonable alternative to those who really do find it offensive. I think singing a song of religious foundation and actually saying a prayer to another God are two different things, but I think a lot of people would disagree with me.
----
It's also different if your culture (religious or otherwise) is in the majority position, or at least if you have chosen where to be and know you could leave (e.g., if you had decided to move to a Muslim country just because you liked it, or because there were good opportunities for you -- as opposed to, say, fleeing from your home in desperation, being forced to move as a child, etc.).
I think often what people object to isn't just the piddly details of having to make certain noises or see certain patterns of color, but the weight of all that goes with that. Which seems, then, either "not the issue" or something to "just get over it" to someone in a non-threatened position. But the weight is still there.
So, for example, I can definitely understand someone not wanting to be made to read erotica, or not wanting to have to wade through sexually explicit images on his or her way to buy the milk, etc. I don't think the items should be prohibited from being made available, but I can understand not wanting to be reminded of the weight of all that which may come to bear with sexually explicit things for some people.
That isn't my particular issue, and neither do I have a problem with Christmas imagery and extensive presence this time of year. However, I can understand that this weight is very real for some people, as kmboots notes.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Second, it's America, we're allowed to protest whatever we want. You keep saying "Deal" as if people must ALWAYS just accept the way things are.
So do you also admit my right to campaign to keep Christmas out of the public sphere, then? (Ah yes, seeing the rest of your post, you do. Ok, I think we don't actually disagree, then.) You should please note, you say almost exactly the same thing:
quote:non-Christians just need to do their best to ignore it
'Deal' is more succinct, certainly, but it comes to the same thing.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: For me (I am a church musician) praying and singing prayers are very much the same. I don't think I could, in good conscience, sing a hymn that expressed things I don't believe. I even have a hard time with various "patriotic" hymns these days.
When it comes to prayers and singing hymns well yes I can see how I might object.
But if the hymn is about God (be he Heavenly Father, or Allah) and a request to him to bring peace to humanity, well you know what, I have no problem with that.
If it's a Buddhist Mantra asking for inner enlightenment, well thats fine too.
If its a religious rite, asking the God of nature to bless the earth with plenty, again thats fine.
If you try just alittle bit, you can in fact find religious expression in every religion that I think I would be fine celebrating.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Shmuel: Kidding aside, seriously, asking a nation to change something that has been around since it's foundation, that the grand, grand majority of the people consume, for a minority that only has to deal with seeing a magazine here and there, some posters, and a video rack every so often, isn't realistic. They have a right to try, but I disagree with them.
One might also add that Santa—and, indeed, the public celebration of Christmas in its modern form—came along a considerable time after the country was founded. (One might also make an equivalent case for modern porn.) But you, Lyrhawn, seem to be trying to have it both ways, making an argument that Christianity in the U.S. is intrinsically [a] more pervasive and [b] less offensive to others than pornography, while simultaneously refusing to make such an argument.
For what it's worth, I'm behind the position you seem to be advocating roughly half the time: I think they should do their best to ignore it, Christmas and pornography aren't going anywhere, and they won't be legislated away. Furthermore, sales at stores and shiny DVDs I think are the least of their worries in life.
I'm not really sure what you are saying. How am I making and not making an argument at the same time?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:You are not celebrating humanity with secularism, you are celebrating religionless society.
Thanks; if you hadn't told me, I'm sure I would never have figured out what I'm actually celebrating at Christmas. But now that you have read my subconscious mind, I am finally able to understand myself and know what I'm really doing!
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Second, it's America, we're allowed to protest whatever we want. You keep saying "Deal" as if people must ALWAYS just accept the way things are.
So do you also admit my right to campaign to keep Christmas out of the public sphere, then? (Ah yes, seeing the rest of your post, you do. Ok, I think we don't actually disagree, then.) You should please note, you say almost exactly the same thing:
quote:non-Christians just need to do their best to ignore it
'Deal' is more succinct, certainly, but it comes to the same thing.
It's my OPINION that they should, but I'm not going to take away their right to change the status quo, and I'm not going to subject them to a Christian tyranny. You can do all you want to "outlaw" Christmas if that is your goal, but you're going to fail miserably, as I think you should.
I don't even think Modern Christmas is that religious. Santa Claus is a pagan figure, not Christian, regardless of how he is viewed today. Christmas trees pre-date Christianity in tradition, there's nothing inherently Christian about wreathes, mistle toe, holly, ivy, shiny lights etc etc. And gift giving isn't specifically Christian, it isn't even religious. The god referred to in most Christmas songs, when they refer to Christmas at all, is the god of Abraham, which all three major religions I would think are at least okay with HEARING, once and awhile.
Step back and look at a secular holiday. What if there was a group that was offended by the Fourth of July, for whatever reason. They didn't want to see Red White and Blue everywhere, and fireworks, and Uncle Sam running willy nilly about, and parades, and hear Stars and Stripes Forever all the time.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:You are not celebrating humanity with secularism, you are celebrating religionless society.
Thanks; if you hadn't told me, I'm sure I would never have figured out what I'm actually celebrating at Christmas. But now that you have read my subconscious mind, I am finally able to understand myself and know what I'm really doing!
I'm not sure the point you are trying to make KOM, care to elaborate?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: For me (I am a church musician) praying and singing prayers are very much the same. I don't think I could, in good conscience, sing a hymn that expressed things I don't believe. I even have a hard time with various "patriotic" hymns these days.
When it comes to prayers and singing hymns well yes I can see how I might object.
But if the hymn is about God (be he Heavenly Father, or Allah) and a request to him to bring peace to humanity, well you know what, I have no problem with that.
If it's a Buddhist Mantra asking for inner enlightenment, well thats fine too.
If its a religious rite, asking the God of nature to bless the earth with plenty, again thats fine.
If you try just alittle bit, you can in fact find religious expression in every religion that I think I would be fine celebrating.
So would I. I would have no problem singing/participating in any of those examples. I think religions have more in common than we realize. But there are hymns etc. which directly contradict my beliefs. I would not sing those - though I wouldn't have any problem hearing someone else sing them.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why are you telling me what my secular holiday "really" celebrates? Are you aware how incredibly arrogant that is? I might as well tell you that you are "really" celebrating a pagan midwinter festival intended to bring the sub back through human sacrifice!
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I'm not really sure what you are saying. How am I making and not making an argument at the same time?
I refer you to:
quote:I'm not going to get into a point counterpoint with you on Christmas vs. porn. I don't see where it would lead.
It's hard to make an argument based on alleged differences when you refuse to argue the existence of those differences...
quote:I don't even think Modern Christmas is that religious. Santa Claus is a pagan figure, not Christian, regardless of how he is viewed today. Christmas trees pre-date Christianity in tradition, there's nothing inherently Christian about wreathes, mistle toe, holly, ivy, shiny lights etc etc.
And this makes matters better how, exactly?
quote:And gift giving isn't specifically Christian, it isn't even religious.
Ditto, with an extra side order of irrelevance.
quote:The god referred to in most Christmas songs, when they refer to Christmas at all, is the god of Abraham, which all three major religions I would think are at least okay with HEARING, once and awhile.
This again wouldn't particularly help everyone if it were true, and is only true from a Christian perspective in the first place.
Posts: 884 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
kmbboots: Ok then I think its quite possible to even in public school find a way to celebrate plurality without having to resort to a no religion NONE policy.
KOM: I am well aware of why Christmas is celebrated during winter. Your secular holiday? So now the month of December is the place of a month long SECULAR holiday? Could you point me in the direction of when this tradition started?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
BB, I said that I wouldn't have trouble with your particular examples as they wouldn't be against what I believe. They might very well be against what other people believe.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
I refused to get into a point counterpoint because they are separate issues, and it's a conversation that never has to end. If you can tell me what you think such a conversation would accomplish, I'll reconsider it. As you can see, I clearly AM arguing one way or the other, you even voiced support for it, so I don't get where you are saying that I'm not arguing for something you said you agreed with.
I never started an argument based on Christmas vs. Porn, that was done by others, apparently trying to assign some value of importance on Christmas and Porn. I don't think they are on the same level to begin with, so that's also part of why I don't see the value in such an argument. And again, if you can come up with a valid reason why I should do so, I'll reconsider it.
As far as the secular nature of Christmas. If Christmas is a secular holiday, arguing against it based on the position of a religious minority against a majority becomes as moot as if Mormons were arguing against Independence Day on religious grounds.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ahh, what the world needs, The next great thing Your secret to millions
I just have two words for all of you.
"Christian Porn"
Most of the comments I could make on that would be greatly unappreciated by the moderator, so I'll leave it at that.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:As you can see, I clearly AM arguing one way or the other, you even voiced support for it, so I don't get where you are saying that I'm not arguing for something you said you agreed with.
Note that I added a few phrases to create the position I was voicing support for. Whether you'd go along with those seems to flip-flop from post to post.
quote:I never started an argument based on Christmas vs. Porn, that was done by others, apparently trying to assign some value of importance on Christmas and Porn. I don't think they are on the same level to begin with, so that's also part of why I don't see the value in such an argument.
Then, umm, what exactly are you doing in a thread about whether there ought to be laws against pornography, in which Christmas was brought up specifically insofar as it's a parallel case? If you think there's nothing productive that can come out of such a parallel, even to the point where there's nothing productive that can come out of discussing whether there is a parallel, then you're not adding anything productive in this particular thread; if your argument is that they're not parallel, then you need to argue it, not take that position for granted.
quote:As far as the secular nature of Christmas. If Christmas is a secular holiday, arguing against it based on the position of a religious minority against a majority becomes as moot as if Mormons were arguing against Independence Day on religious grounds.
Putting aside the bit where that contrary position is a strawman, "pagan" is in no way equivalent to "secular."
Posts: 884 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
