Leave Others Their Otherness

Amen.

I count 20 times you use the words 'we' or 'us',
and 19 times you use the word 'you';
in a clearly oppositional way.

Yet you place 'they' in quotation marks in this sentence;

" "They" hate us for our freedoms, some might say."


Are you for or against divisive, grouping and generalization?

This truly reads like an "us vs them" rant. Why not speak in a way that doesn't separate people into opposing camps?

Do you really believe non-Christians are free of bias?

Or that all Christians are ignorant bigots?

Does it not occur to you that all these years Christians have resisted persecuting religious minorities, and respected their right to worship as they please in this country? Do they deserve such petty sniping for it?

Saje W: I have only ready the first sentence in your article and already I am disgusted. I am so sick and tired of people speaking ignorantly on subjects that they have failed to follow up on. The founding fathers DID NOT separate church from state. The supreme court did. This is a re-occurring theme on Gather. It may be nit picky but, I have completely lost faith in the rest of your article. I will read the rest just for shits and giggles.

When did being Gay become a religion?

Marus... It doesn't matter if the founding fathers did it or not. THAT is the point of the article.

And since, Jefferson, a founding father, was the one who COINED the phrase, I'll give him credit for it. If you don't want to, that's okay.

We can argue the intent of those such as Jefferson and Madison until the end of time. But you'll never grasp the truth. So we're saying... get over it.

I am perfectly fine with the separation of church and state. You have assumed that I am not. Poor assumption. What I am not for is poorly thought out arguments.

I am not quite clear how your religious freedoms are being challenged either? Can someone remind me when that happened?

You must not have been paying attention when W repealed the Bill of Rights! Subcontracting government service to Christianist proselytizers is only the tip of the iceberg.

Marus--the argument is that it doesn' t matter what the founding fathers intended. The fact of the matter is that the United States is not, nor shall it ever be, a "Christian" nation, as much as some would like it to be.

And funny thing is, plenty of people who agree with me like the argument. You just don't like what I have to say about it.

And, btw... atheist and agnostic aren't religions either.

spiritual beliefs none-the-less....I think you got the point

Stephen: I am still trying to figure out when your religous freedoms were taken away. I am the biggest Bush basher, but I have failed to see how he is being equated to the stripping of freedom

Marus, what do you think the purpose of the Establishment Clause in the Constitution was intended to do. It clearly called for a separation of Church and the Federal Government. Are you saying that the US Supreme Court should not have applied the Establishment Clause to the States via the Civil War Amendments? There isn't really any serious doubt that the majority of the Founding Fathers were Enlightenment Deists who would have sympathized with Saje.

George,

Undoubtedly the "founding fathers" would have sympathised with some of Saje's statements, but I have a hard time believing they would not have recoiled in dismay at the tone and heavy handed insinuations it bristles with. Thank God Saje did not write the Constitution.

Personally I can relate 100 percent to what Saje is saying if it's being directed to the right wing nuts who put "their man" George in the White House so they could push their hateful religious agenda.

I think many Christians who are not of the right wing nut variety would agree it is a country for all of us and have no problems with other religions and are not interested in injecting their religion into the government. I have met many Christians who are genuinely appalled at what this administration and the religious "right" have been trying to do to this country. They also don't like it because they know how poorly it reflects upon them.

Unfortunately, the right wing religious nuts in this country keep saying and doing things that drive people like Saje and myself to want to just say "F*#$-off" very loudly.

Perhaps it was said with a little too much venom for many and I understand that it might not be fair but that's the result when you have venomous people claiming to represent Christianity.

Marsha,

I know this, and don't blame people for reacting that way. This kind of bunching people together though, is precisely the error in thinking that leads "wing-nuts" and so many other close minded people to try to control what folks can and cannot do. Such a piece as this one will never serve to lessen the problem, but merely compound it.

Believe it or not, I'm not really all that prone to vitriol...but this sparked conversation about it, which means it did what I intended it to do.

It was supposed to seem confrontational.

Religion is a hot topic, and one of the traditional "off-limit" topics at office parties and family reunions for a reason. I don't get into religious discussions with co-workers or acquaintances for this very reason. Politics--well, that's a different subject entirely. It doesn't take long for people to realize it's not a subject they want to debate with me.

I would hazard a guess that neither THomas Jefferson OR James Madison would been shocked our dismayed at the tone taken here, assuming they know the situation with which we are currently faced, where a minority of loud, extreme right-wing religious fanatics would like nothing more than to be able to force the rest of us to fall in line with their narrow spiritual and political ideology.

They are but a very vocal minority, these Dominionists, but they have the ear of a good part of Congress, and are at least given lip service by the White House and several well known political pundits.

It is THESE people I address with this essay, and them alone.

This forum could use a device with which you can edit a comment.

Reading through it afterward and noticing my errors makes me crazy.

My apologies for sending it through with the typos...

"I would hazard a guess that neither Thomas Jefferson NOR James Madison would have been shocked OR dismayed at the tone taken here (which, btw, I'm not sure is all that harsh, considering that some of THEIR spokespeople have said far worse things without censure from the Christian community). I did not once suggest killing or jailing anyone for having a different point of view.

'nuff said.

'This forum could use a device with which you can edit a comment."

Perhaps also with a time stamp and number of times a comment has been edited would help.

For the purpose of keeping track of what someone said at a particular time--avoiding the possibility of editing after the fact to change the tone of a comment.

This might elicit an explanation of the reason for the edit on the part of the poster.

Correct and there is nothing wrong with either of your points. The same thing might just be good for when articles are written.

Saje,

I think the comment editing is a poor idea for just the reason Travis implied and you illucidated. Too much room for shenanigans. I've personally tricked a mindless thug into posting a comment that made them look totally foolish, by putting up a "bait" comment, then removing it a few comments later.

I hope you mean what you say about you're intentions in writing this piece, though your equivocating remark about the tone not being "all that harsh" gives me pause. Suffice to say I appreciate that you narrowed your "target" group to a level where I would join in your sentiments.

George,

To say that the founding fathers were deists is both an extremely blanket and misleading statement.

Were there deists in the group? Absolutely. But they were not the majority. People love cite Jefferson and Franklin and even Washington. But the truth of the matter is the constitution itself, supreme court rulings, the Declaration of Independence, ect....are riddled with references to either God, the bible, or even Christianity.

I am NOT making an arguement for Church and State. I am making an arguement against blatantly inflamatory statements and broad stroked statements. There is no place for them in real debate.

Marus... No room for inflamatory statements in real debate? Why not? The opposition uses them ALL the time. Or simply says outrageous crap no one can refute simply because it IS so outrageous.

God allowed 9/11 to happen because of atheists, pagans and gays?

Or allowed Katrina to happen to punish the city for its moral laxity?

Or suggesting we simply assassinate the leader of a sovereign nation?

Or how about suggesting we force all the Muslims in the middle east to convert to Christianity under the threat of death?

Yeah, as if our standing with the rest of the world hasn't fallen far enough.

Those of us who aren't part of their club are insulted at every turn without any visible or audible outrage from the "reasonable" people, yet, when we fire back, suddenly everyone's all offended. Or did I miss the memo that said we had to be meek and mild all the time, despite the fact that Christ himself said that CHRISTIANS were supposed to love their enemy and turn the other cheek?

All I asked in the original article is that certain people accept that this country belongs to everyone, not just followers of one religion. Followers, I do not hesitate to remind you, that can't even agree amongst themselves who and who isn't included in the great Christian club?

Maybe a lot of us are tired of the vitriol and unproveable slander aimed in our direction. Maybe we're tired of the loathsome hypocrisy shown by a lot of these people.

Maybe some of us would like to hear the "reasonable" people speak up and tell these bastards to put a halt to this sort of rhetoric because it's just unAmerican. Not to mention disgusting.

And to answer your last post... Like I said in the original article--it doesn't MATTER what the intentions of the founding fathers were at this point. This circular debate has been going on too long with neither side gaining any ground. Enough already.

We're here, we're not going away, and this is our country too.

As long as the media and the "mainstream" gives those people a free pass to say whatever they like without censure, I'm going to consider it my right AND duty to fire back.

Sorry if it offends you, but, well, I think their language, and the fact that they are able to spew their venom on a national stage, should offend you a lot more.

But, hey, that's just me.

Marus, the problem is that you see various Church leaders heavily engaged in myth-making for the purpose of making their right-wing views seem patriotic. It is clear that there has seldom in any country been such a crowd of intellectuals in control of a country. The only one that I can think of that comes anywhere close to the intellectual group we consider the founding fathers, I suspect would be the Communist leadership before Stalin started his purges. It is true that they refer to God and Providence, etc. but it is clear that it was not aimed for the same meaning the fundamentalists are trying to attach to it with their myths. If there is any organization that dominated and united the thinking of the founders it was the Masonic Lodges in America. Many of the early strategies were planned out after lodge meetings.

Saje,

Your 'us vs them' mentality, puts you in the same class of people you seem to be provoking, in my view of the world. It bears the very same judgemental-ism, hypocrisy, and animosity, as far as I can see.

The title of your article is 'Leave Others Their Otherness', yet you feel compelled to attack others that express beliefs you do not agree with, and denounce "reasonable people" for not doing the same. These "right wing extremists" are just that, extreme. And have been pointed out as such ad nauseum.

It is you who are setting them up as "the opposition" by failing to be specific about who they are, and repeatedly using generalizations like "the great Christian club" without acknowledging that the vast majority of Christians do not align themselves with things like "assassinating" foreign leaders (or anyone else), blaming victims of disasters for their misfortune, or "force(ing) all the Muslims in the middle east to convert to Christianity under the threat of death"

Obviously those that do adhere to such UNchristian notions will only be incited to further heights of violent thinking by an article such as this, as will extremists in "your" camp as well. You set yourself off as a part of a battle of reactionaries, that has no influence on "reasonable people", other than to leave them feeling insulted and saddened.

I have never seen the radical views you list portrayed as anything but repugnant on mainstream media, and I have seen voluminous amounts of "censure" for them, from all sorts of "reasonable" people, Christians and non-Christians alike. But most "reasonable" people actually feel we should "Leave Others Their Otherness", including "Christian" extremists, and don't feel the need to paint broad brush generalizations that depict such babble as a real threat to freedom.

You imply that you are something of an expert on politics. I suggest that you consider the political undercurrents that give rise to "wedge issue" manipulation of the less well informed segments of our population, and refrain from sounding a battle charge against any religion or other class of people, on the ridiculous presumption that they have a duty to censor or stifle the free speech of folks that happen to label themselves members of a related class.

Because these people misinform and frighten the less well educated in order to manipulate them. The media actually goes to them to find out what they think. The only people who GIVE A DAMN are their followers. Does anyone else really care what Pat Robertson has to say about anything in particular? Other than the people who listen to him all the time and will find out soon enough?

I mean, really, what's up with that?

And do you really believe in such a thing as the "Gay Agenda?"

Yeah, like blacks and other minorities, they want to be allowed to live without harassment and interference. That's a hell of an agenda.

What some people are worried about is that their children (who may already have the inclination to that sort of thing but they'd rather not know about it) might get the idea that it's an acceptable lifestyle for those who are drawn to it, and everything will get all messed up.

Welcome to reality. Which, as someone recently said, has a known liberal bias.

What you take for venom is emphasis, but not once do I say anything even vaguely threatening. "We will remind you" is not a threat. It means that someone will do just as I have now, and said some things they wouldn't like to hear.

Sometimes opposing something with too much passion gives it strength. It's a taoist principle. But there is something to be said for "slapping the mule" to get its attention.

If one can get through to some people that we have no interest in interfering with their religion. There is no "war on Christmas." The ACLU isn't trying to take away their right to worship however the hell they want to. It'll go to court to DEFEND their right to worship... but they need to know that the same holds true for all American citizens. As it should.

Saje, (and Liz to some extent)

This taoist principal works both ways, does it not?

"Does anyone else really care what Pat Robertson has to say about anything in particular?"

The answer is no, with at least one obvious exception.

You have every right to be "slapping the mule" to get it's attention...and should not be at all surprised if the mule kicks.

I too am slapping a mule. This mule is divisive language, which happens to be what you're criticizing. Hypocrisy is fair game and those that engage in it set themselves up for rebuff. I laid out the basis of my charge in my first comment. I assure you, I try not to play favorites or take sides with my blows.

I accepted your qualifying statement, and only ask that you not seek to set me in opposition with those I do not oppose. This seems a reasonable request, does it not?

Saje,

First: Congratulations on throwing yourself in the same pool as Pat Robertson. I didn't think anyone really took him seriously anyways?

Second: No there is no room in debate for inflamatory statements. Because inflamatory statements don't serve an arguementative purpose.

Third: "Their rhetoric" is actually very American. As is yours. It is because of America that both them and you are allowed to espouse your non-sense. So again congratulations on biting the hand that feeds you.....the first amendment!

George,

I don't neccessarily disagree with your opening statement. Again, I am just very much against painting a broad brush because as we all know the devil is in the details. Thanks for your thought out responses!

Marus...

I think this is where we get into trouble. You see no difference between a strong statement outlining a perfectly reasonable position with genuine expressions of hatred and divisiveness that attempt to project a xenophobic world view onto people who don't seem to know any better.

Asking to be left alone is NOT the same as promoting fear and mistrust of those who are different than oneself. The fact that those such as yourself seem to believe we are somehow bound to answer such behavior with a conciliatory tone rather than strong statements of our own.

This is the atmosphere that has allowed the extreme right to control the dialogue for so many years at this point. THEY apparently get to say just about anything they want, but god forbid anyone has the nerve to fire back.

This turning a blind eye to the Dominionists who would like nothing better than to advance their theocratic agenda at the expense of other Americans is the reason the dialogue has grown so vitriolic.

As you well know, the 1st Amendment doesn't mean one gets to say whatever one wants without repercussions. There's a big difference between saying "you CAN'T say what you are saying and 'we will answer back' if you say something we don't like.

You somehow seem to expect that those who disagree with the sentiments of those such as Robertson to meekly mumble "oh, please don't say that--it hurts our feelings" rather than answering them in the tone that they deserve.

You've also obviously not bothered to read anything else I've written here.

I hate it when I think I've finished a sentence and it turns out I haven't.

This SHOULD read "Asking to be left alone is NOT the same as promoting fear and mistrust of those who are different than oneself. The fact that those such as yourself seem to believe we are somehow bound to answer such behavior with a conciliatory tone rather than strong statements of our own is why so many people think we don't believe in anything.

Saje,

You seem like a reasoning person, so I will try ONCE more to reason with you.

If you had answered the "Dominionists" as a human being, meekly or not, I doubt that any who comment here would have done anything but laud your efforts.

BUT YOU DIDN'T; you clearly answered ALL Christians as a group, and did so as the voice of ALL non-Christians, as a group. That is what has brought the critical responses written herein. I see no one defending Pat Robertson, or any other radical's proclamations. I see people trying to counteract your inflammatory rhetoric, specifically, the 'us vs them' approach you DID TAKE.

"Us versus them", interesting. Are we now going to break into song, "We are family..." People obviously should have the right to be left alone, and they also have the right to react when they feel they are not being left alone. And, we should start recognizing that right and knock off the wonderful fuzzy thing. I consider myself a Christian, but I also acknowledge that the group which currently stepping on the majority of toes in this country also call themselves Christian. And despite right wing rhetoric to the contrary, this may be a nation whose citizens are predominantly at least nominally Christian -- but this is not a Christian nation where we can or should expect or force other people to accept our or any other brand of Christian morals. That is the beef! How many times have you seen Buddhists out in the forefront trying to dictate who we can marry? When have you seen Wiccans out trying to force people to acknowledge the existence of a goddess in order to pledge their allegiance to the flag which represents all of our citizens. Heck yes this is an us versus them situation.

Geroge,

Come on.....you were doing great until your last response. Buhddist countries don't face those same issues due to the fact that they are usually all Buddhists and quite frankly wouldn't put up with it. Lets not set these other religions up on pedastals. Buddhist monks morphed into a sex crazed cult for hundreds of years in China. As for God in the pledge of allegiance., Guess what the great thing about America is you don't have to say it.

Please note that the below all caps aren't representative of me yelling just emphasizing.

The question being asked is this....WHO IS TELLING YOU HOW TO RUN YOUR LIFE? HAS ANYONE TOLD SAJE SHE CAN'T PRACTICE HER OWN SPIRITUAL FAITH? Unequivically the answer is NO.

What you guys are arguing about is the current political tone in America. Not Christianity or religion at all.

I would be willing to be high dollar that there are several million americans outside of Christians that don't believe in same sex marriage to use your example.

So come on.....once again....lets stick to what Saje wrote. Don't try and intrepret what she intended.