Sometimes, I really don't care where I'm from. This is where I am now.
There’s been a lot of controversy on Gather lately regarding religion, the sanctity of religion, satire and its place with respect to religion, respect of others’ religious beliefs, etc. Personally, I can’t speak for the people involved; I can only read what they write and ponder it. It’s my own personal choice not to comment, or to leave a comment if I feel the need.
What I don’t like to see, either here or anywhere else, is the sort of “lynch mob” mentality that takes over when a person or group feels threatened. You don’t only see it with regard to religion. Just three weeks ago, with the elections looming large, liberals and conservatives were slinging the mud just as furiously. You see it when some supposed hottie shows her half-naked butt to the world and leaves biting comments because others attack her. It is fear that drives the attacks; and for what? These are only the words and only thoughts, of people who may or may not agree with you. These are not bullets or cannons or bombs. They cannot hurt you unless you allow them to.
Many might call me a heathen; some might want to pray for me. Why? I choose not to go to church, or belong to organized religion. Yet I consider myself to be highly spiritual, in touch with what’s good in the universe and the good that’s inside of me. These are my trials as a fallen Catholic.
My mother was a very devout, Catholic convert. She converted from the Shinto religion when she came to the United States and because of my father, who was also Catholic. My father, far from devout, stopped going to church when he was old enough to smoke, drink and do what he wanted to-about age 12. It was much later, about 15 years ago that I learned his childhood parish priest was involved in the molestation of several boys, one in particular, of my uncle. I can see why going to church held very little value in my father’s mind.
In my youth, we all went to church, and I was enrolled in Catholic grade schools as well. In my middle school years, I started to question the rigidity of a church which was supposed to embrace all who came to its doors. You were supposed to be loving, yet nuns were slapping your knuckles with rulers or dragging you about by your ear lobes. In reality, Catholicism, as well as the other churches, does not embrace everyone. It doesn’t matter how good you are or what your intentions may be. If you are a homosexual, if you actively participate in any contraception besides the rhythm method, if you have sex before marriage, if you allow abortion, if you disagree with the politics of the priest, you are not welcome to worship here.
(I would like to interject at this point that it was while at Catholic grade school in the 1960s, I first learned – from my teachers – that the Bible was translated many times over the last 1,900 years, and that many of the translations were changed for political reasons, or translated “incorrectly” because of language differences. People who may want to dispute this point should look online for a minute or two. There are many online references to problems in translation of the Bible. In fact, we were told to get a certain version of the Bible, because it would be closer to the “Catholic” way of thinking.)
It was no surprise then, that during high school, I decided to see what other religions had to offer. My best friend and I spent our Sundays going to various services. This wasn’t so easy to do in a small town like Colorado Springs was in the early 1970s. We attended the Baptist, Episcopalian, Methodist and Jehovah Witness services. We read the works of Ram Dass, the Bahai holy texts and the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. (In fact, my friend ended up attending and graduating from the Maharishi International University.)
There were good things about many of these institutions, but the people there always gave you that nagging feeling that if I didn’t agree on one tenet, I would be rejected. And there was always something I didn’t agree with, or that didn’t sit right with me.
One of my friends was Baptist, and her mother held prayer groups where we were “prayed” over. As a typical sixteen year old, I didn’t feel like I was that close to damnation where I had to be “prayed” over. Overall, I was a pretty good kid. For example, I’d never been arrested. I didn’t even start experimenting sexually until I was 16, so I was indeed a late bloomer. My drug use was tame and limited. I was usually nice to people. I played guitar at church for mass, and did community service (before there was even a term for it) every Saturday by entertaining the elderly in rest homes. Yet, here was this middle-aged woman praying for me. There was something more than slightly annoying about having a person you barely knew praying for your soul without your consent.
When I was 18, I married for the first time. My soon-to-be husband was in the military, and because of our impetuous youth, we felt the ceremony had to be done right away. My mother felt it we had to be married in the Catholic Church. We were married in the chapel at Ft. Carson, after a whirlwind courtship and no premarital classes, which usually were prescribed by the church. Had we taken them, I might not have been married at all. Nine months later, we were divorced in the eyes of the law, but not in the eyes of the church.
Fast forward eight years; I wanted to marry again, and my fiancé was Catholic. His parents wanted us to marry in the church. We could only be married in the church if 1. I received an annulment, and 2. We took the premarital classes. We took the classes; but I found I could only get an annulment if I paid the Archdiocese of St. Paul $3,000. I had to fill out paperwork claiming abuse of some sort. This wasn’t true; in fact, my failed first marriage was because of poor timing and immaturity. In the eyes of the Church, that’s not a valid reason for an annulment, however; so I was encouraged to embellish my story for the Archbishop. In the midst of taking these classes, I found I truly loathed my fiancé; we broke up, thus saving me the expense of $3,000 to erase my first marriage in the eyes of God.
Since then, I’ve wised up. I’ve refused to actively participate in any church which will cleanse my soul and clear my marriage for mere monetary contributions. My husband, who was also baptized Catholic, and I married in the inter-denominational and welcoming Church of God, both of us having been married once before. He’s also not big on organized religion. However, the specter of being a fallen Catholic always looms large. There’s the guilt associated with not continuing familial tradition. Both of our children were baptized Catholic, mostly to appease the grandparents. However, I made up my mind that if my children wanted to continue receiving sacraments, it was totally up to them. (One did; the other didn’t.) Both children attended Catholic schools. For me, the intrinsic value of a Catholic school education far outweighs any disadvantages. Both of my children are free thinkers, and they know why they were in Catholic school. And yes, I support the school, not only with tuition but with my time.
We do not go to church in the traditional sense. I do not feel the need to openly show myself in a church setting. I celebrate my oneness with the universe in other ways. I believe in a higher power, a supreme being, but I don’t necessarily call him/her “God.” Unlike many Catholics I know, I don’t believe it is okay to commit sins during the week, and be absolved by confession on the weekend.
I do not believe in the Bible in the literal sense. Nor do I believe that the Koran, the Torah, the Vedas or other sacred texts should be taken literally. Because of this, yes, I do not believe in the literal translations of the virgin birth, Moses’ parting of the waters, and many other things which are depicted in the Bible. I respect others who believe, but I expect them to respect my beliefs as well. There are many worthwhile lessons to be taken from any sacred script, but my own interpretation has merit, too. What difference does the nitpicking make anyway, as long as the lessons learned are helping you to become a good person?
My heart has room in it for everything and every one. I do not care if you’re red, brown, yellow or purple; I don’t care if you’re flaming gay; if you’re a good person, there’s room in my world for you. Families do not have to have a man and woman heading it to be considered a family in my world. Abortion is a legal choice for a woman, and I’m not going to tell any woman she can’t have one, no matter what I believe. There is “good” and there is “evil”, and I think we can all figure out on our own which is which.
As for the place of satire with regard to religion, it may not be politically correct, and it may seem hurtful. My thought and hope is that any of it is not meant to be mean-spirited. Religious satire has happened before and will happen again. Only those who are not strong in their own beliefs will let it hurt them. Personally, I don't see satire as an affront to me, only as another view. Like everything I view on Gather and in life, I look at that view, and then I move on.
“It is important to expect nothing, to take every experience, including the negative ones, as merely steps on the path, and to proceed.” ~Ram Dass


Comments: 98
AMEN!
Are religious people the only ones held to a standard of morality? If there is a god (and I believe there is) He requires that we ALL act in love toward each other. Are those who have not yet acknowledged His existence and/or rulership in their lives exempt from the requirements He has set forth, especially if these dictates create harmony in society and between people?
I find it so interesting that there are so many who often fail to give God a second glance can with such ease quote scripture indicating how "Christians" or other religious folks are to behave or respond while they themselves give little consideration to the fact that they should be behaving in similar fashion.
We all live in a political domain (nation, city, state, town) where there are rules and regulations that apply to us as citizens. We may not agree with these rules, but we are obliged to follow them, lest we face the consequences. These rules, though loathsome to us were designed for our good and for the good of society. Peace only exists to the degree that all parties obey said rules whether they agree or not (unless of course the rules violate a higher moral authority).
There is truth! It is out there. Some believe that they have encountered it and are seeking to embrace it fully. Some have not yet sought or encountered truth. Others ignore what little truth that has been presented to them, seeking instead to belittle others and their pursuit.
If you know or are familiar with the truth should you not be living it? If you fail to realize Christ as lord of your life or God as your creator do you not recognize that in the midst of all of this religious wrangling lies the obvious command to love others and treat them as you wish to be treated.
If those who use satire to mock the beliefs of others honestly and sincerely believed that dancing in the middle of the road at 1 AM cured the hic-ups would you not desire that those around (though they may disagree with you and think you a fool) respect your right to believe as you do and not hinder you in acting in a manner consistent with your beliefs (and encourage you to watch out for cars in the process).
I am saying this: Those who publish articles with the intent to pock fun should honestly evaluate themselves and their motives. This is a practice for all people not just those who subscribe to a particular deity. Can the author of the article to which this article refers honestly say that there was no malicious intent on her part in the crafting of her article? Was it merely for "fun" or was it for "effect"?
We all owe it to self to engage in periodic (daily) evaluate ourselves and motives lest we delude ourselves into believing that we are correct, upstanding, moral and righteous and that it is the "other" who is at fault, lacking a sense of humor, attempting to ruin our fun, unrighteous, etc. We must each judge ourselves; EACH ONE of us!!!
We should each act in a way that promotes love, harmony and goodwill. To post some anything that does not instruct, but merely tears down is irresponsible, in my opinion. I believe in the right of all to speak as they wish. I also believe that we should speak as if we are standing in the presence of god (believe in him or not) and that we will be judged for every unkind word that proceeds from our mouths or that is processed in our thoughts.
why not both?
"I do not believe in the Bible in the literal sense. Nor do I believe that the Koran, the Torah, the Vedas or other sacred texts should be taken literally. Because of this, yes, I do not believe in the literal translations of the virgin birth, Moses' parting of the waters, and many other things which are depicted in the Bible. I respect others who believe, but I expect them to respect my beliefs as well. There are many worthwhile lessons to be taken from any sacred script, but my own interpretation has merit, too. What difference does the nitpicking make anyway, as long as the lessons learned are helping you to become a good person? My heart has room in it for everything and every one. I do not care if you're red, brown, yellow or purple; I don't care if you're flaming gay; if you're a good person, there's room in my world for you. Families do not have to have a man and woman heading it to be considered a family in my world. Abortion is a legal choice for a woman, and I'm not going to tell any woman she can't have one, no matter what I believe. There is "good" and there is "evil", and I think we can all figure out on our own which is which."
--- For once, someone else feels the same way I do and doesn't make me feel like I'm bad, or I'll be going to hell for feeling this way. When I tell people I am not religious, and I feel that religion just separates people, they look at me and ask me if I am athiest, because they just can't understand how I can't (or don't know if I) believe in something! Feeling this way is actually OK and it doesn't mean I'm a bad person. I don't look down on people for having a religion and I would appreciate it if people wouldn't look down on me for NOT having a religion.
Thank you, again Joanne. You really just made my day.
Denominationalism will send you to hell just as fast as other sins, IMHO. You worship in your own way, Joanne. And you are a good person. I know this. A 10 for you from me.
There are many religions in the world. I do not, however; feel a need or have a desire to satire the beliefs of others, though I may not agree. I choose to live in peace with others and with my God. When others fail to do this (live in peace) it is a sign of something deeply wrong in their soul.
Thanks Faith B & Bob B. those are the nicest things I've heard in a long time!
SPIRITUAL PEOPLE ENLIGHTEN ME
I was raised Catholic. I finally looked carefully around and concluded that the Holy Roman Church is one of the oldest criminal conspiracies on the planet.
Lenny Bruce had a bit about Jesus returning to earth and finding himself in the slum tenements of Spanish Harlem, where he sees nothing but poverty and misery.
He then checks out the local cathedral only to find the bishop wearing a ring worth 10 grand.
Okay, that's enough pope-bashing for today.
As far as people being thin-skinned about religion-inspired satire, I'm afraid that I am of the opinion that NOTHING is so sacred that it can not be made fun of.
Also, in order for one to become annoyed by anyone or anything, one must choose to do so.
Very thoughtfully written piece. Thanks. BTW- I missed the Dame Ruth article that you say inspired this, but it certainly can stand on its own merit.
"Dominus Vobiscum" ;o)
Yup, Lynn, and it's the "imperfect" people who run the churches.
I enjoyed your fair and reasoned piece and am tickled by the even tempered thread it has generated.
Never seek a "laugh" at the expense of another person. This is often damaging to the psyche and just plain wrong!!!
My friend and I were discussing prayer recently, and how people like to pray for others. She made an interesting point which stuck with me. It was, "If someone is praying for you, what if what they are praying for isn't what YOU would want?" I don't mean good health, or stuff like that. I mean when they pray for you to do/have something THEY want.
I agreed with everything you said Joanne. Good stuff!
If there wasn't "satire," this world would be without Mark Twain's "Huckleberry Finn," George Orwell's "Animal Farm," the Simpsons, and Janis Joplin's "Mercedes Benz" song, The Daily Show and Saturday Night Live. And what a plain, sad world that would be.
Well done.
Mary,
"Never seek a "laugh" at the expense of another person."
Humor is always at someone's expense.
I also believe that those with beliefs different than mine are fully capable of making good posts and good arguements. If we all believed the same we'd only need one person to do all the talking. I've had my own issues with church. I choose to attend. That's my choice and those who don't choose to attend well that is their choice.
what more need be commented on???
you are a good person, mythology (and political mythology at THAT!) is not the be-all or end-all of existence.
Very revealing article about yourself. I would encourage you to carefully evaluate many of the beliefs and doctrines (including the Bible) from a completely objective viewpoint. I realize that when we are hurt by persons in a religious authority position, we tend to want to avoid them (rightfully so), but please try to avoid the common error of dumping out the baby with the bath water.
I see much truth in the Bible and many writings by several key Catholic doctors of the church. I myself am not Catholic (although I grew up Catholic), but I have been able to reject the behavior and false beliefs of many Catholic leaders (such as the ones described in your article) while being able to retain the Universal truths and wisdom as expounded upon by many people who happen to be Catholic.
Additionally, the Bible is filled with God's wisdom and is incredibly encouraging in an otherwise dark world. I agree that many things in the Bible should not be taken literally and should be placed in their proper historical and spiritual context - and I agree that many Christian church doctrines fail to do this - but that does not deny the fact that the Bible is a treasure trove of words directly from God (through men willing to write them down for us).
There are many inconsistencies in the Bible and there is certainly a Hebraic agenda flowing throughout the Old Testament (as well as a Christian agenda present in the New Testament), but there are also words of truth that are living in both the Old & New Testaments. God is speaking to us constantly and the Bible contains many of his words - if you have not read it in a while, I would advise the books of James, John, the 3 Epistles of John, Psalms - if you read these books with an open mind you will see the wisdom of God in them. I agree with you wholeheartedly that many of the people you have described in your article clearly were not showing you the love of Christ and were blinded by their false religious practices which have evolved since the days of Jesus, but continue to seek & find God - his truth is out there - don't let some bad people ruin your pursuit of truth.
If you have not read it, I would strongly encourage you to read C.S. Lewis' "Mere Christianity" - its great satire about Christians written by a devout Christian and is not offensive at all (except to those hard core fundamentalists who wear the darkest of glasses during their daily walk).
Be encouraged.
I am not destroyed by "meanness" to myself. I am distressed over "meanness" to others! Can I actually be my brother's keeper?
Mary, I am still not convinced that the article you're referring to was written in "meanness" to either yourself or to others.
suppose to be about taking care of our neighbors like we want to be taken care of, helping the widows (those who can't help themselves), and taking our pointing finger out of everyone elses nose ... ????
easier said than done!
After many years of being a faithful church attendant and follower, and after some events in the church in which I am still a member, I have decided that I will choose the way I believe and worship. I do not feel under obligation to attend weekly services and attend special services and funerals of people I know.
A particular hipocritical event turned me completely off from atending weekly services.
I truly believe I can worship and honor God by practicing honesty and integrity in my daily life and relations to others.
I agree with the statement: "Only those who are not strong in their own beliefs will let it hurt them. " but would qualify it by adding "to the point they think they must 'save' others in order to validate their own beliefs."
I agree most wholeheartedly with your statement:
What I don't like to see, either here or anywhere else, is the sort of "lynch mob" mentality that takes over when a person or group feels threatened
What puzzles me is your apparent acceptance of such a "lynch mob" forming around people associated by some label with those which you have experienced difficulties. Are not all such "parties" based on something akin to that sort of generalizing?
I am a Christian. I have no control over what others choose to call themselves or choose to do. I did not accept any history or label as my Savior, I merely accepted Christ. To deny what I found to be a powerful and rational basis for that acceptance, for fear some would play labeling games, and associate me with people I had never met, and events over which I have no control, would (to me) be cowardice of a most shameful kind.
The article and thread which apparently lead you to write this one was clearly a "lynch mob" when I arrived. I attempted to "break up" that mob, and get folks to see their irrational behaviour in association with it. I have in the past attempted the very same thing in "Christian" lynch mob situations. So I ask quite bluntly:
Are you advocating treating people that choose to accept the label Christian as valid targets for "lynching"?
If not (as I assume), I would dearly love SOMEONE, ANYONE, to point out the place where the author of that article, or any of it's major applauders, made any statement that they were not intending to malign Christians? They were given numerous opportunities to say they were not, and failed to avail themselves. Indeed they responded to such opportunities by further insults and accusations.
It was a "lynch mob". Calling those that took exception to it's malicious agenda a lynch mob is simply denial.
Joanne: I know YOU understand where I'm coming from, as I do you. I gave 10's to both this article and the one that inspired my "gang-pray" comment and its subsequent expansion. I've never made a secret of my opinion of organized religion, but I have no quarrel with those who choose to believe whichever anthology of stories they prefer. I say, "if it makes you happy and gives you peace of mind, believe anything you like, as long as I'm allowed the same privilege." This is an intelligent, well-reasoned piece and I appreciate your having written it.
"there is humor that does not destroy the psyche of others!"
I didn't say that all humor "destroy[s] the psyches of others."
Nevertheless, I'd like an example of something humorous that isn't at someone's expense.
Webduck, I really appreciated this point. Personally I do not think it is appropriate to pray for someone else except in the most general terms . . . perhaps only to ask that the person being prayed for be granted grace and courage. It amazes me when people pray for very specific things in regard to other people . . . how on earth can we know what's best for someone else? I don't even pretend to know what's best for me . I'd rather leave those decisions to the wisdom of the benevolent force in the Universe, which is lots smarter than I am.
Consider the possibility that Jesus is in fact God and that perhaps Mary H. (like some of the rest of us) has an ongoing close personal relationship with Jesus. Jesus is her friend.
Now if you (at least for the sake of my point) imagine that Jesus is a living spiritual being and close personal friend of Mary H. - then why would it seem "extreme" if Mary H. was offended when Ruth's article poked fun and him and his earthly mother in a crude manner.
If I posted a similiar article about any one of you and your mother (or someone else who was very dear to you) wouldn't your close friends probably be bothered by this - even if you could "take it" - the sign of a close friend is to empathize and care deeply for the person whose friendship you cherise.
I know you may not feel the same way about Jesus (or even his earthly mother Mary) as many Christians do, but you should be able to relate to how one would feel if someone wrote something extremely unflattering about your friend.
I know that when I was merely speculating about Ruth's motives for writing the article or when I was giving my opinion that the article has an erroneous premise (which Ruth later recanted about and changed the article by removing the reference to its premise as a fact), several of Ruth's "friends" spoke up to defend her. Why would it be surprising that some people would actually speak up in defense of their close personal friend (who is also defined as "love itself")?
Can't you see... have your hearts been hardened to the degree that you can't distinguish between kindness and cruelty?
I would encourage you all to step out of your own skin (or box) and re-read the article from the viewpoint that Jesus is actually a friend of yours. From this vantage-point, it should be very clear that the article would be offensive to a friend of Jesus. The article not only mocks him, his mother, but anyone who would belive that the God of the universe could cause a willing virgin to give birth to the Son of God.
If anyone can't at least see why that article would be offensive to some (and understand that why), then you truly cannot relate and must be characterized as "close-minded" and completely incapable of objective observation.
I'm sorry if these words dig deep into anyone's personality, but it is what it is.
Go back and re-read Ruth's article, but put the name of your closest friend in place of Jesus and see how it makes you feel.
What is being here discussed, indirectly, is whether the article in question, and the subsequent comment string, was one such occurrence. OR, was the entry into that thread by those that questioned it's nature an example of lynch mobbing?
Squirm as many have, and will, the article and thread bear witness to the truth. All the hallmarks are there: The generalizing, the poor reasoning, the vicious responses to questioning and calls for moderation.
If these things are what you consider part of a good time, you are casting a vote in the struggle of civilization. You may wish to believe you're not. You may wish to attack those that are aware of the struggle, or your vote. You may even attempt a lynching of such people.
But if in the future, you ever try to speak up against any person unfairly ridiculing or undermining any person based on some happenstance of association by Faith, or race, or heritage, or custom, or nationality: there will be a small voice that you will need to stifle. And your words will ring hollow.
I want my words to ring true and clear. What do you want?
I welcome a open reasoned discussion about significant events in history (like the virgin birth of Christ) - with persons of varying opinions participating without getting personal or trying to negatively over-generalize and categorize all persons of a particular faith (such as Christianity).
I agree with you that it does seem strange that the lynch mob response seemed to be coming from the anti-Christian crowd toward the Christians - it was somewhat reminiscent of the 1st Century attacks upon Christians by Jewish officials - they didn't like what the Christians were saying so they picked up their stones and there was poor Stephan.
One would expect (after 2,000 years of periodic acts of cruelty falsely in the name of Christ) that it might have been the other way around, but now its the non-Christians who are acting like a lynch mob - trying to have their own little separatist party and hatefully responding to the presence of persons who don't entirely believe what they believe.
By the way...I know the topic of discussion has gotten off task, but I actually really enjoyed Joanne's article. I empathized with her plight at the hands of certain fundamentalist religious leaders and a system that does not appear to reason. I also applaud Joanne for not going on a tirade against Christianity in her article (unlike some other recent articles) - I think its Joanne's type of article that can draw people together for a common cause - to feel her pain, sympathize and examine our own spiritual walk to make sure that we are not supporting a religious system that disagrees with the teachings of Jesus.
It is an excellent article, in my opinion.
I will surely be reading more of your work.
This is so true however I learned it during my training as a minister. The flip side is if you get yourself a Concordance you can actually translate the scriptures to their true meaning. This was quite the eye opening experience for me.
"In the midst of taking these classes, I found I truly loathed my fiancé; we broke up, thus saving me the expense of $3,000 to erase my first marriage in the eyes of God."
This was priceless Joanne I laughed till I cried. Thank you I was beginning to think you would deprive me of your quick wit, so glad to not be disappointed.
I too gave up "organized religion" years ago it just does not suit what I believe the Divine to be. I have my own path and I walk it with conviction and my beliefs are secure. This is probably why comments directed at how I believe do not make me feel the need to respond. It is a good policy you have to read the view, accept that persons view, and move on.
Wishing You Laughter
..
U
I just try in my own small way to teach this without causing offense. Not always an easy thing to do.
First of all, you made a powerful statement: Words cannot hurt us unless we allow them to. On the other hand, humans as we are, words either spoken or written affect us powerfully. The ignition points for most of the clashes, outbreaks and wars have been words. Words have been instrumental in bringing about great social changes or chaos. The words in the world's literature are largely directed towards a person's emotions rather towards logical thinking.
Secondly, your journey through life is a interesting case in point. Every new born child starts this journey with some inseverable baggage like parentage, sex, race, color, physical features, mental traits etc. Later on the child learns from experience that this inalienable baggage that it carries has to cope with society's own baggage of prejudices, innuendoes, insinuations etc. Further on, more complications are involuntarily added to the baggage by way of culture, creed, nationality and so many other affiliations. A part of this add-on baggage sometimes gets changed or modified due to one's individual experiences and observations. Some balance is somehow found; extreme opinions are usually formed out of extreme experiences and extreme instability. Rarely people take time to examine each and every tenet on which they base their life. The rest, however, carry on with their baggage with great conviction, love and fondness, albeit its acquisition is to a great extent incidental to the place, the time and the condition of their arrival into this world.
A person may not like his/her name mostly acquired as an infant. If someone makes fun of that queer name derogatively and willfully, it hurts. Even if the name is misspelt or mispronounced because of ignorance or negligence, it hurts. Some people also get agitated if their language, arduously cultivated through years of schooling, is cavalierly used by others. What baffles me is that the same people do not think twice when they attack others' deeper rooted beliefs in the same cavalier fashion. The argument they offer for this is the freedom of speech.
The freedom of speech is very dear to us because of the constant repression of it by the political and religious powers throughout the course of history. We have become almost paranoid that unless we have the unbridled freedom of speech, the abuses that the history witnessed might recur. We fail to realize the responsibilities that are contingent to the freedom of speech. I am afraid that these zealots who want to demonstrate their freedom of speech in a perverse manner are the ones who really undermine it.
There is much to speak on this, but suffice this much.
For this reason, I do not object to anything anyone says, about me, my beliefs, or whatever. Mock me, praise me, make fun of me, it just doesn't phase me. Do a stinging satire of my most profound beliefs, and I will at least try to see the humor in your words, and the silliness you see in my position. I am not so righteous that I am above comment, nor am I so proud that I will not listen, and I'm not too stuck up to laugh at myself. Matter of fact, I've pulled some of my worst jokes on myself!
It's really funny how people tend to go on and on when you get them talking about their beliefs, myself included. There I go again. Thanks for sparking my interest, Joanne.
I believe my God looks at the choices I have made and the effort I have put forth. My ability to know right from wrong. Moral from immoral. Plain and simple.
I agree whole heartedly with everything that you said. (and then some!) I also agree with Mugg...Laughter helps, poking fun makes you explore the reasons that made you feel the need to do so in the first place. I also think the world is too tightly wound. People take offense at something others find humor in, when offense wasn't even the intent at all. People's lives would be a lot less stressful if they would only step back, take a look around, and let themselves laugh at what they see. Just like those around them are already doing. The world needs to stop seeing humor as judgment. They are different. Just cause I am laughing at something doesn't mean I find it bad, offensive, or disturbing, or any other negative adjective...It means I simply find it FUNNY. It truly is a humorous world we live in. (and I find the most humor, in the people in it.)
The above comments are my opinions only. I am not going to debate those who don't agree. I'm telling you upfront, that you do not have too. That's the beauty of opinions, we are all entitled to our own...
Give me a good ole "fallen" Catholic , like yourself, anyday over the self righteous
hypocrits who take the dogma, any of it, literally, anyday. I worked closely with nuns for 21 years, and believe me, in all those years I have met only 2 that meet the criteria of what I believe a nun should be. That being a person devoted to helping her fellow man, loving unconditionally and willing to work for a better world. The same goes with priests. I applaud this article, although I woefully admit, I missed Dame Ruth's piece., which is soon to be rectified.
On the subject of lynch-mobbing: the stone throwing usually goes both ways and I don't condone any of it, for any reason. Each and every rock thrower is WRONG. When I see an article here that causes so much vitriol, I read it and the comments, and I walk away. I simply refuse to participate, and that's a good rule of thumb to use. If an issue is so close to you that your emotions are stirred to that extent, WALK AWAY. Why put down in words what you are thinking in the heat of the moment? Fear and anger will make you say things you probably don't mean. Put your energy into writing something thoughtful and post that.
I know the comments here have turned into anti-Christian/Christian, but people, use your heads. We're doing this same thing to the Muslim world, as they are doing to us. Maybe this is wishing for a utopia that will never exist, but when are we all going to get along?
Good article, Joanne! Ahhh....just more "Grist For the Mill", isn't it? ;)
Of all the comments I've read on this issue and others like it, yours stands out as the most vile and beyond belief. You have indeed shown yourself true to your screen name.
If I misunderstood your article, I am sorry. You have always been a kind friend to me and I don't know of you intentionally hurting anyone. I am sure the original article was probably meant for that small group, but since it made it into the open spaces of Gather, it offended many people of all faiths, religions and beliefs. It was a vile attempt to make Mary appear to be the village slut. It also took the Godhead away from Jesus.
Everyone has the right to their own beliefs but what is the point of making fun of something that our very country was founded on and the majority still believe in? This senseless article only points out why Americans keep losing respect in other countries. (I am not referring to your article, Joanne.)
"I know the comments here have turned into anti-Christian/Christian"
This is utterly deceptive, and frighteningly simplistic.
If a woman is being raped by Phil, and Greg tries to stop him, is that fairly characterized by 'Phil/Greg' . . ?
To say this is a battle between anti-Christians and Christians is wrong.
Anti-Christians either were or were not 'mobbing' Christianity. If they were, attempts to get them to see the destructiveness of that behaviour is not fighting them. It's an attempt to free them. Go read the thread, I was the one that did this first (other than Parke, who was ridiculed and accosted simply for asking a question as a non-Christian), and what I did was not violent. I was not trying to harm or impose my beliefs on those participating in that 'mobbing'.
I was trying to get them out of a "lynch mob" mentality. This is not a form of "fighting". There was no fight. There was a "lynch mob" broken up. If you are against lynch mobs, why are you equating the mob with those they were mobbing?
Thank you for taking the time to post on your fresh perspective. I go to church, but don't feel like I have too. I agree with almost everything you have said here.
Thanks also for putting it all out there.
John Knight, the only thing I have to say about the entire incident of the "other" article is that I never accused anyone in particular of mobbing the author or anyone else who was there in her defense. My stance on Gather is to write what is in my own heart as clearly as I can, and to stay out of any fights altogether. It's NOT just Christians/non or anti-Christians, and I'm sorry if I simplified that a little too much. I've witnessed other people and other articles about other issues get mobbed as well, and it's not "right" in my heart. It actually PAINS me to read such posts and comments, and I will not participate.
You invited me here with these words:
I wrote this article as sort of a response to the flack that Dame Ruth Dickson received for her article. It has already gotten a drive by 1!
I don't care if you agree with me, but I invite you to read it.
When I arrived I read these words:
What I don't like to see, either here or anywhere else, is the sort of "lynch mob" mentality that takes over when a person or group feels threatened.
I too have a heart. I too feel pain. You chose to accuse a group of people of behaving as a "lynch mob". That you did not choose to name names is not what I'm addressing here. I am quite sincerely seeking to question your accusation as a whole.
There were no condemnations of anyone for not believing in Christ. There were no accusations that those that do not believe in Christ are responsible for mass slaughter or persecution. There was no ridicule of people for not believing in Christ, or the reasons they might base that choice on. Christians did not give "flack" to non-Christians.
There were numerous condemnations of those that believe in Christ. There were accusations that those who believe in Christ are responsible for mass slaughter and persecution. There was much ridicule of those that believe in Christ and the reasons the might base that choice on. People were giving "flack" to Christians.
That some took exception to the logic being used in those attacks, and questioned the clearly stated claims of "factuality" about what were obviously personal opinions, does not constitute a "mobbing". Any notion that Dame Ruth, or the many persons providing encouragement and further disparaging remarks were simply having a bit of fun is ludicrous.
Had they been performing a similar display of malicious ridicule toward any number of other groups, there would have been a great outcry of bigotry and senseless verbal abuse. Would you be accusing those that spoke up about such behaviour a "mob" if the target of ridicule were blacks, or Jews, or women, or Muslims, or any number of other groups of people?
Why is it wrong to question defamation of Christians, but honorable to question defamation of others? Could it be that people are blinded by their own prejudices, and are not really opposed to "lynch mobs" in general, but merely those that lynch people for whom they happen to feel sympathy?
I oppose ALL "lynching". I see no other reasonable position for a follower of Christ to take. Accusing those that attempt to call attention to a lynch mob's irrational revelry, of themselves being a lynch mob, whether or not they happen to be a member of the "target" currently being maligned, is not a matter I take lightly. For I too have a heart, and I too feel pain. And I will speak the truth without fear.
When the time comes that maligning others for sport is considered jolly good fun so long as the object of ridicule is something we do not personally care for, our decent into hell will be inevitable.
a multifaceted spiritualiTree
a streaming cloud-sunrise/sunset
a place inside the heart
which has mandala-rose stained glass window eyes.
Good article, J!
Respect is not a given. It is earned. Joan has earned mine. Self-proclaimed christians must do that on an individual basis. One of my many issues with 'christians' is that they seem to think that this status elevates them above all others. It does not.
One of my other issues is that when a generic 'christian' is used, there are those who want to assume that means 'all' when it usually does not. If you decide to take an article personal, sarcastic or not, then that is your choice and I have to sit back and grin at you all over the place... there must be a reason you decided it applied to you. no? (and just for clarification, this was put out there in general, not directed at Joan)
If you demand respect of your religion, then you must by all rules of logic respect those of us who find religion to be hilarious (in a very scary kinda way.) If satire makes you feel threatened, well, tough.
(I'm using 'devil' in a generic sense,
all devils need not take offense)
I have, however, found a church that is non-judgemental, doesn't pretend to have all the answers, and focuses on Christian living, not doctrine. This church and the people in it have become the focal point of my social and spiritual life, and I almost always leave the church service feeling better than when I came.
It's too bad that so many churches are so destructive to a person's spirit. Kind of defeats the purpose, doesn't it?
A drive by one???????
Plezzzzzzzzzzzz