The Problem with Protecting the "Sacred"

@Aon: Right. I'm glad to hear that.

@Derelict: I'm referring to the people besides God overreacting over that. I doubt God is going up in arms over the Eucharist thing earlier either. I do not believe he is petty. I believe he is far beyond that kind of reaction. What I'm saying is that sadly, some people would consider that desecration. I know others wouldn't, and I'm glad to see that. Now, I don't actually disagree with the Eucharist thing being desecration. What I disagree with is how overboard the reactions are. As I said, a detention is the farthest that should ever be given. That's appropriate enough. Anything farther is too severe over this.

Quest 64 thread

I'm gonna be the coolest Buddhology or Pali teacher ever and be like "BITCHES STUDY AND ANALYZE THIS OBJECTIVELY AND CALL IT SHIT WHEN WE NEED TO YEAAAAAAAAAH" and then be like "so leik i'm buddhist as shit" in private and bored.

If someone wants to accuse us of eating coconut shells, then that's their business. We know what we're doing. - Achaan Chah

Strictly speaking, I wouldn't call removing the Host from a church to be "desecration." I would deem it inappropriate, but to desecrate something holy implies a much greater degree of damage and intended ill-will than what this student ever had in mind, insofar as I can tell.

That is to say, what PZ Myers did is desecration, not what this student did.

"Can ye fathom the ocean, dark and deep, where the mighty waves and the grandeur sweep?"

@Aon:

@Derelict: Ah, I see what you mean. Now, didn't the Teacher simply stomp on the book to get their attentions? The method definitely would've been better, but I still wouldn't do anything about it. There was a reason for it, and it wasn't desecration.

Quest 64 thread

PZ Myers isn't the book-stomping teacher, though I don't really approve of what that professor does either.

"Can ye fathom the ocean, dark and deep, where the mighty waves and the grandeur sweep?"

Ah. Yeah, the bible stomper doesn't bother me that much, to be honest.

Could you link the Myers article, please? Or the post it's on.

Quest 64 thread

I don't think that's quite right. Starship and Carciofus have been the two people arguing most vehemently against me and neither has displayed any kind of exceptional eloquence. They're both technically proficient in English, or what have you, but you don't seem to have any trouble forming sentences yourself.

So I've refused to acknowledge the arguments of people you like based on your past interaction with them, yeah?

Well neither of them is really willing to engage with me, so that's how it's going to fall out. Carciofus' main line has been an explanation of how offensive it is to get Eucharist wrong, and it would be a totally convincing and effective argument if I had claimed it wasn't offensive to get Eucharist wrong. But I never said that. What I've said is that it is not acceptable to seek to hurt people for offending your religious sensibilities, even if you really are offended. Further, if you insist it is acceptable that leads very quickly to I'm going to go out of my way to offend them. Carciofus has consistently refused to engage this point beyond saying this goes beyond a religious disagreement because <insert metphysical explanation of how offensive it is> There may be some well-worded posts in there, but it's only being used to deflect.

Starship has mostly insulted me, but occasionally made a foray into declaring me wrong or accusing me of a logical fallacy without backing it up.

You may be fond of them, but if you disagree with something I've said all you need to do to argue more effectively than they have is just be willing to directly engage whatever point you have a problem with.

Doesn't lead to constructive debate anyplace, but that's not a special rule for me. I haven't insulted anyone other than to say that if someone declare their religious symbol something worth hurting people over it makes me want to desecrate said symbol, and I don't need your permission to be offended when someone compares me to a holocaust apologist, even if they can't grasp the gravity of that accusation.

Sure. It's pretty clear you understand and agree with my point. I'm not terrifically invested in the semantics of it.

I was picking up a lot of sympathy for Carciofus' position, that while the harassment campaign against the offending student went too far when it entered the territory of death threats, it was still acceptable when it was merely in the territory of petitioning his academic institution to expel him.

That behavior is religious intolerance, it was starting to feel like religious people were going to close ranks and defend it because how dare I question their religion. I was happy to see a religious person unequivocally state they disagreed with it.

I've personally always found that when I'm on the other side of something like this, and one person is responding to multiple people at once, it makes it easier to keep track of what they're saying if it's in multiple posts, so I did that. But I'll change it up.

edited 15th Jun '12 6:38:34 PM by Paul3

Oh. Alright. I'm glad you're happy, then.

"Can ye fathom the ocean, dark and deep, where the mighty waves and the grandeur sweep?"

Well, if students really do make a habit of failing that class because an insult to their religion makes them fall apart, and I'm getting the impression that's the case, he's doing them a favor. Your window to drop a class without penalty is narrow, and he's letting them know right out of the gate, "This is the kind of insult you need to be able to handle in order to succeed in this class."

It would be an unpleasant sort of thing to discover a month or two in.

As for Myers, he's something of a firebrand. Harassment that happens to him is something he's deliberately invited, which makes it significantly less offensive.

Paul. This:

Is not the same as:

You do not seem to understand this. This frustrates me.

edited 15th Jun '12 7:42:21 PM by Muramasan13

Smile for me!

I would find it to be both unprofessional and unbecoming if he were stomping on a copy of Atlas Shrugged or The Bell Curve or anything similar as well. I simply find it to be rather childish. I probably wouldn't quit the class, but I probably wouldn't be able to take the man seriously unless he really proved to be good past the initial outburst. The fact that it's the Bible makes it slightly more offensive, but I don't really think the Bible has the same level of individual sacredness that the Host does, for varying reasons. I mean, I suppose if he were doing it to certain Bibles... as in, I would physically restrain him from, say, stomping on the Lincoln Bible, because that is a very important thing independent of its religiousness. But, otherwise, I mostly disapprove of the action, regardless of what book he's using.

"Can ye fathom the ocean, dark and deep, where the mighty waves and the grandeur sweep?"

Starship

Well yeah, saying you're wrong on an individual point is still discussing the idea, one idea you happen to have that I'm identifying as wrong. Discussing a pattern in a poster's history can lead to trying to infer something about the poster themselves. It's a subtle line, and I'm frankly amazed this thread is still open. This depends on a) the scale of what you can see your funding going to (Derelict's response in 500 covered this well), and b) whether or not you can actually get away with directing where you're dollars go (take Carcio, who has found a way to fund a nice old priest without contributing to the legal protection of child molesters). Yes, being part of an organization demands some loss of control and some need to tolerate your efforts going to causes you may not agree with. But there's a limit to that before you start questioning your relationship with and membership in said organization.

DG

While I can agree with the sentiment of this post, I would ask you to imagine what the situation would be like if people had even less exposure to vocal atheists than they do now. Ours is not a problem handled by quietly going back into the closet at the first sign of conflict in a discussion.

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.

Well of course not. One form of the insult has a thin veil that prevents you from having to face the consequences of uttering it and the other doesn't. I appreciate the comparison about as much in either case, though.

That's not being refusing to acknowledge your points or engage in conversation. That's me refusing to bother with how clever someone thinks their rhetoric is and addressing the meaning behind it instead.

It was, as others have pointed out, a terrible and senseless analogy. Not in the sense of "this analogy hurts my feelings" in the sense of "I'm like a shark that just... can't stop making analogies."

Starship didn't mention the holocaust because it was a great analogy that helped convey a complicated point. He mentioned the holocaust because it's a just hilariously awful thing to associate your opponent with.

I really, honestly, do resent that.

edited 15th Jun '12 8:47:53 PM by Paul3

This. Indeed, ceding the pulpit to the religious and letting them keep it is why so many religious people have developed both an entitlement complex and (at least in the case of the American Christian) a distorted sense of what constitutes "persecution".

Ideals exist to be challenged. If they aren't challenged, what's the point in maintaining them?

If I were to write some of the strange things that come under my eyes they would not be believed. ~Cora M. Strayer~

I've explained this once and it seems I have to do it again...

The reason why my professor stepped on a bible is not the same as why Myers and other anti-theists do their crap. It's to show that regardless of how strong your gut instinct is to an event, you need to always be able to clear your passions and look at the whole picture.

Take this real example: a girl walks into an abortion clinic. Protestors outside instantly label her a baby killer because they are so moved by their passion, they don't stop to think:

1) this girl is just an office clerk reporting to work 2) this girl is low income and in need of an emergancy D&C 3) this girl is picking up a friend 4) this girl is there for rape or loss of child counselling

And I could go on...

If you are going to give a full, well rounded education on philosophy, you will find things you are passionate about. The problem is you cannot allow yourself to be blinded by them because it compromises your work and honestly your character.

It also forces the very narrow minded and isolated kids in the class there are going to be people out there who aren't like them and they need to learn from them regardless of how much they disagree or find them absurd.

I personally find the idea of someone dying for a cracker appalling. But the scholar in me would research the histories of this idea, who contributed either for or against this, which cultural groups hold to this more, etc. I look for the "why" of it all.

That is what a shock treatment like that will train you for, if you're willing enough at least.

"Psssh. Even if you could catch a miracle on a picture any person would probably delete it to make space for more porn." - Aszur

Marry me. Or at least correspond with me regularly.

If I were to write some of the strange things that come under my eyes they would not be believed. ~Cora M. Strayer~

Indeed.

That's why empty grandstands with muddled reasons grind my gears. It's rudeness trying to act as if it has reason, when all it is is an empty troll. Now, doing the same with an actual, targeted reason at a known, specific audience (and little collateral damage) as an actual tool of learning and debate? Knock yourself out: no hate there.

The moment it turns to insult for insult's sake, well... then slander, libel and whatever laws are enforceable for the offence are fine and should head your way. I don't agree in blasphemy laws — in the say way I do not believe that hate crimes are fine and dandy, either. Be they minor or major: if being nasty was at the root, I bristle like a porcupine.

If he is, I'd be rather confused at why he would go around telling Gideons that he's disproved the Bible. I mean, that seems rather counterproductive.

edited 15th Jun '12 10:01:49 PM by Pykrete

Christian can only be defined as a follower of Christ.

You don't have to believe Jesus is the son of god to think he is a worthy man to immulate and whose standards are worthy of striving for.

They're mainly called "little c" christians.

It's very much how some strands of Buddhism see Siddartha Guatama as just a man who achieved enlightenment, so he is a good role model to follow and the other strands who see Buddha as a god.

Both are Buddhists, but with different paths.

"Psssh. Even if you could catch a miracle on a picture any person would probably delete it to make space for more porn." - Aszur

Look, I'll admit I know a lot of non-Christians that do a better job of following Christ's example than a good chunk of people within the faith, but I can't help but be reminded here of a stickman in a fedora and three words in the English language that end in "GRY".

edited 15th Jun '12 10:26:57 PM by Pykrete

no clue what you're referring to or what you're trying to say.

If you want to debate who has the right to call themselves christian, then you can I guess. But that doesn't stop the logic that any follower of christ, regardless of how they follow him, have every right to call themselves a christian.

I could throw up a bunch of essays or names of those who have actually written on this concept, but it is 1 in the morning for me and my bed misses me.

Christianity has over 30k recognized divisions. With those numbers, you can bet the only thing that will unite these groups is *drumroll* they follow Christ.

"Psssh. Even if you could catch a miracle on a picture any person would probably delete it to make space for more porn." - Aszur

The three words are "angry", "hungry", and "AAAAAAAAAAAAAA"

I mean, most people, regardless of faith will agree that Jesus was a cool guy, but it's pretty disingenuous to say "BTW this guy is Christian" (which you didn't use with a lowercase c anyway) and mean something that is not colloquially understood.

If you want to get really pedantic, it doesn't make much sense to describe yourself as Christian if you don't believe he was Christ (title) instead of just some itinerant priest with some great ideas.

edited 15th Jun '12 11:08:55 PM by Pykrete

I think she's referring to the people who usually get called "non-practicing Christians", where they don't actively go to church but still try to keep the tenets that Jesus set down, and still self-identify as Christian.

edited 15th Jun '12 11:07:22 PM by DrunkGirlfriend

"I don't know how I do it. I'm like the Mr. Bean of sex." -Drunkscriblerian

Funny, I never said he was a Christian. I only said there are those in the Christian community who identify themselves as christian who do not believe in Jesus as divine.

You can agree or disagree with if you think little c christians have a right to the title. People with a lot more degrees and who have translated the biblical texts with more capability than me debate their validity. But that doesn't stop little c christians from existing and identifing themselves as such.

Some do go to church services like the Unitarian movements. Others don't. Most read the Jeffersonian bibles. Others read different versions and just skip the mystical parts.

Have you ever heard of the Jews for Jesus movement? Sometimes their members will call themselves little c christians in addition to being Jewish. Met groups in both New York and my home state who had members that did that. Others didn't.

I intentionally avoided answering this directly because if you were paying any attention to my explainations on how disciplined the people I study under were and how my field is governed you would see his faith does not matter or factor in his lesson plans at all.

So who cares if he is a devoted Catholic, a dancing Pentacostal, or a determined Jew? He would still use blasphemy as a teaching method regardless.

Either you agree with him or you don't. Either you see his point or you don't. it's okay. The world isn't going to stop.

Edited for spelling. Don't tell me if I missed a spot. I am in the clutches of insomnia now and I can't always catch my phone's autocorrect or glitches.

edited 15th Jun '12 11:36:08 PM by Gabrael

"Psssh. Even if you could catch a miracle on a picture any person would probably delete it to make space for more porn." - Aszur

So you're making vague leading red herring statements you don't actually mean for what purpose, then?

Look, I get that there are people who don't ascribe to the main faith who still like Jesus, and frankly I don't really care what they call themselves (also yes, I was well aware of Messainic Jews in general.*

).

I get that you're supposed to leave your personal spiritual beliefs at the door in a neutral academic class — and that's awesome and exactly what we should be doing. Gold star there.

What I don't get, and what you haven't actually given me an answer for other than some variant of "they deserve it", is why starting things off with an offensive gesture with the express purpose of preemptively weeding undesirables of a targeted group out of your class before even mentioning any of that neutrality stuff is a remotely acceptable alternative to "you may find some material offensive; study this outside viewpoint and learn to argue from it to broaden your understanding of how other people think" and just marking down the bible-thumpers as they happen.

edited 16th Jun '12 12:14:00 AM by Pykrete