Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by adjensen
Well, in my mind, I doubt that the students passing out the pornographic material were of the mind that it was degrading to women, as they were happy
to provide it for others.
I don't understand, are you saying that they're vindicated in doing it, because they personally don't find it offensive?
One might claim that the Bible has its own share of issue with women, and I wouldn't disagree, but that is another matter.
Not as far as the campaign was concerned. The title was 'Smut for Smut', so if you consider them both degrading to women then it is the same
One is objectifying and dehumanizing half of our population, the other makes occasional remarks that demonstrate the patriarchal society that it was
written under, and for. How is that even remotely "the same matter"?
Yes, I consider this to be a hateful and hurtful display, whose intent is to garner attention by being offensive.
How was it hateful. Your below statement explains why it is hurtful to yourself and possibly others, but that is, as I said before, I
I believe that intentionally offending people demonstrates hate. Pure and simple. Doesn't matter if it's the pro-lifers with their pictures of
aborted fetuses, the Westboro nuts, or these atheists equating texts that are of the utmost importance to some people with pornography.
These are the sort of images you see at college campuses. (it's a slideshow, can't save the images, but they're not exactly nice
I have never witnessed such displays -- when I was at university, it was never anything more than people standing on street corners passing out Bibles
and talking about their faith. I do not believe that this is anything other than extreme behaviour and your misconception that it is typical, but I
may be wrong, as it has been far too many years since I was on campus.
Regardless, reacting to one subgroup (whether they are extremists or you claim that all evangelicals act in this way) in a manner that demeans and
mocks the beliefs of all is not respectful, so about the best you can claim is that you've sunk to the level of those you look down on.
She protests, but she doesn't spontaneously start shouting about it on campuses. She doesn't just show up on a street corner. An organized
protest and a guy just standing on a corner are two different things.
What makes them two different things? They're both disruptive, they're both just people who have one opinion trying to garner support for what they
believe, and they're both annoying to people who don't agree with what's being preached (or, in my case, they're annoying even WHEN I agree with
what's being preached
And people always have the right to counter-protest.
This isn't about rights, Madness, this is about respect. Is the guy with the crazy sandwich board respecting the people that he's preaching to? I
have no idea, but in looking at his sign, there's nothing there that certain readers of scripture (who are not me) would say is wrong. If God is
real, and the end is coming (as it is for all of us, but I assume he means in an apocalyptic sense,) then fornicators, idolators and all the rest are
in trouble, by his reading. One would hope that he's not screaming "you're all a bunch of jerkwads, God hates you and you're going to hell", but
I guess you never know.
I do know, however, that pornography is demeaning and degrading, and that equating it to the Bible is patently offensive, and intentionally so, to all
persons of faith, not simply the few that stand on street corners.
Oh, I'm not talking about your average evangelist, I'm talking about the sort of hatemongers found in the above mentioned images. I'm all
for polite people politely putting forward their beliefs.
No, what you seem to be saying is that the extremists sufficiently represent the masses, because you support behaviour which treats all believers as
being morally or intellectually inferior, and, thus, being due less respect than someone who does not believe. (I am not saying that you personally
believe or act in this fashion, but you are defending those who do.)
Regardless, what is your justification for mocking people, regardless of whether you agree with them or not?
Mockery is reserved for those who are acting like those above. They're not the sort of people you can engage in a discourse with and they're
generally unpleasant individuals. I'd rather talk to a regular evangelist than mock one.
Again, it's due to the above behaviors, not just the beliefs.
Not "just" the beliefs? You mean that it IS okay to mock someone for their beliefs? I am frequently at odds with one of your cronies here, because
he doesn't seem to understand the difference, either. Taking umbrage with someone's actions are NOT the same as taking umbrage with their beliefs.
The first is acceptable, even required in many instances, while the second is bigotry, pure and simple. It's one thing to disagree with someone, or
try to persuade them to your way of thinking, quite another to vilify a person and treat them as an inferior, simply because you don't like what they
Regardless, the incident in question is not a matter of behaviour versus belief, because they are not mocking the behaviours of street corner
preachers, they are mocking the beliefs of all Christians.
adjensen, why didn't you address the rest of what I said? I brought up the Mormons for a reason, they universally act in a very polite manner.
I don't mind this polite manner. A gentle "no" doesn't work with the sort of people I'm talking about.
You know that I'm not a fan of quoting scripture, so I'll simply paraphrase a response. "Of what merit is it to only be good to those who are good
to you? Pretty much everyone does that. But to be good to those who treat you poorly or do evil to you, this is a mark of grace."
You're respectful of people who are respectful of you. That's great, but it's hardly notable, since only a cretin would behave otherwise. But how
hard would it be to be respectful of those who are not respectful of you?
Truthfully? It ain't easy, but it's worth the effort.