GOOD NEWS - BAD NEWS (Don't Say You Weren't Warned)

Self | 1-22-04 | Sidebar Moderator

[drstevej]

Great answer

[lockeliberty]

Because the Christians who founded this country didn't write the first amendment just for Christians. They didn't think it was wise to drive away non-Christians. Neither should we.

I'm pretty sure the motivation behind the first amendment had nothing to do with the founders fear of driving people away. It had to do with a basic liberty entrusted to man by God as a result of being created in the image of God. I ask you, do those of the liberal persuasion get "driven away" off the news forum by passionate persuasive arguments? Of course they do. Why should the Religon forum have a different set of rules than the News forum? If a Buddhist were to post on the Religon forum then that person should expect to have his beliefs challenged and if he can't handle the heat he'll run from the kitchen. Are we to treat those of other religons with kid gloves so that we acheive some form of diversity?

You have one chance to convince me that the last word in this sentence was not selected to push my buttons.

If I offended you please accept my apologies. You obviously had a different connotation in mind than what I had. But this is an excellent example of how tough it is to try and regulate free speech. I gave my general experiences with different groups of people and then used some descriptive phraseology to try and get my point across. Since this phraseology was not directed at any particular individual it did not violate the rules. But it did offend you even though it was not directed specifically at you. How are you going to regulate every phrase that may offend someone even if it is not directed at them?

[polemikos]

I'm not going to touch that one

[Utah Girl]

Thank you for your reasoned comments. Here's to you making a difference on the religion forum.

[Invincibly Ignorant]

Probably for the same reason there are pro-choice Protestants - they're failing to obey the fifth commandment.

Great. Now that makes the 4th and 5th.

[xzins]

It is an offensive word in any context except that in a children's book describing an actual kitty-cat type feline.

Whether talking of "weakling" or of female anatomy, it's original meaning derives from it being a coarse derivative connected to female anatomy.

Therefore, there is no "acceptable and non-confrontive" way to refer to anyone by that word.

[Sidebar Moderator]

If a Buddhist were to post on the Religon forum then that person should expect to have his beliefs challenged and if he can't handle the heat he'll run from the kitchen. Are we to treat those of other religons with kid gloves so that we acheive some form of diversity?

Diversity - for diversity's sake? Heaven forfend!

If people are driven away because of ideas faithfully presented, it's their loss, and I have no problem with that. If people are driven away because they are insulted, belittled, derided, called names, and generally treated like they (rather than their ideas) are not wanted, then I have a problem.

I think I presented my thoughts on the issue of "the offending word" in a post to you and A.J.Armitage, just up the page. As I said, I could have brought it to your attention in a less confrontational way, and I should have. And I repeat (something you couldn't have known), we do receive abuse reports about that word. That undoubtedly played into my thinking, as well.

If it makes you feel better I have no intention of becoming the Language Police; at the same time, if we know that a particular word or phrase offends other people, wouldn't it be the Christian thing to do to choose another word or phrase, if possible?

[A.J.Armitage]

But the pro-choice Catholics also fail to obey the Pope.

[Sidebar Moderator]

Ooops! In a post to you and rwfromkansas, not A.J.Armitage. Sorry.

[A.J.Armitage]

Mountain Meadows Massacre.

Before Sept. 11 it was the largest religiously-inspired mass murder in American history. The guy who ordered it liked to bring 'em young.

[lockeliberty]

You know, words that you might say in the middle of a heated football game with your buds, but might refrain from using in front of women, your mom, your grandma, your kids, your pastor/priest/rabbi/significant spiritual leader?

I agree that there are certian vulgarities that nearly everyone would agree are vulgarities. The word I used certianly could be a vulgarity but also has other connotations. I thought it was pretty clear from the context of my post what connotation I had in mind. How do you regulate what one subculture thinks is a vulgarity against another subculture? Words must be understood through their context.

[Barnacle]

But anyway, why are there bound to be some?

Because with in any sample group you will have an average, or typical example that generally defines that group, as depicted in the illustration below.

Although the bulk population of that group will be concentrated near the mean center, and will be generally representative, smaller populations that deviate from the norm can be found to the left and right of the center. This principle is applicable to most natural occurrences, whether the subject is the height of adult males or the number of miles you can get from tires.

[Utah Girl]

Agreed. We all want the gentle ones who have been driven away to come back, and the aggressive ones to cooperate and live by the rules of the forum.

Hi White Mountain. That's my hope too. :)

[White Mountain]

Your #452: I've seen threads regarding the congressional testimony of Maj. Carleton regarding the infamous MMM last exactly 3 posts. The was no editiorializing nor comment - yet they got whacked

Maybe that is why I never saw them. But I have seen the MMM articles that the Washington Post and Salt Lake Tribune recycle every few months.

Funny thing is, the only MMM articles they ever print, so far as I know, and the only MMM articles I ever see here, uniformly try to pin the blame on Brigham Young, and by extension the LDS Church for having him as its leader. But never a word about Haun's Mill, or Governor Bogg's order, or Carthage, or the exodus from Nauvoo in the dead of winter, or the hardships of crossing the plains, or the trailside graves, or the difficulty of communication and travel in those days in the inter-mountain West which Brigham Young somehow miraculously overcomes.

Is there some agenda at work, such as to have our leaders permanently on trial? Why so one-sided?

I am here to discuss the Scriptures, not apologetics. People need to get the responses of our scholars and link to them as well, so people can compare and make up their minds. And then of course people need to behave, so the threads stay there.

[xzins]

see #489 if you so choose

[drstevej]

***I am here to discuss the Scriptures, not apologetics.***

Fine, then ignore the threads that deal with history and apologetics. Why should your prefderences be the boundaries of the Religious Forum? Whaz sup wit dat?

***People need to get the responses of our scholars and link to them as well, so people can compare and make up their minds. ***

Then feel free to post them. But don't just whine.