Today's Menu
Mar. 3rd, 2005 10:00 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
azuriteToday's Menu
Today's Menu features delicious controversy!
But first, choose from our appetizers:
* Piracy, available served warm or chilled
* Religion a'la mode (choose from Strawberry, Vanilla, Blueberry, Chocolate, or Neapolitan)
[Poll #448267]
The reason I created this poll is due to the fact that I, probably like many other people, have mixed views on piracy. I have loads of MP3s on my computer, programs I haven't paid for, and even some anime episodes. Of course, I can justify that not all soundtracks are available --they can be out of print or only available import. Sometimes I have paid $50 for a CD imported! But where does all that money go, even if it's a legit CD? The same thing applies to anime-- sometimes the fansubs are better than the licensed version. But once licensed, distribution of a fansub is supposed to stop-- so people like me turn to P2Ps and bittorrents. In the case of burned games, I have only a few Japanese versions of DDR, but I can't even play them until I get my PS2 modded. I prefer them over the equivalent US releases, because they have more familiar songs and options. What to do when the same games in Japan are out of print? I could try and find or import a legit copy, but how do I really know? Plus, I'd be paying far too much for something I'm not "supposed" to have!
How do you draw the line between what is allowed (MP3s, etc.) to what is blatantly illegal (anime piracy)?
This whole controversy was spurred by an article in today's Daily News, on page 13. It's titled "Cross-on-county-seal petition fails." The article addresses how a petition started to try and get a cross back on the Los Angeles County Seal (removed after the ACLU threatened to sue over the cross representing government promoting a religious establishment) failed, since it fell short of the required number of signatures on the petition.
I could argue with you over the crosses and everything, but first let's start with the background-- some people want the cross back on because it represents California's history, and our many missions and Spanish background. I fully understand and appreciate all that, but isn't there another way to depict it? How about the picture of a mission, or maybe a Spanish missionary in robes with a rosary-- and no big crosses? I'm sure there are plenty of other ways of showing California's Spanish history.
The thing that got my goat was how the majority of the supporters were obviously priests and pastors of various churches throughout Los Angeles. I respect and admire them for their dedication and faith, but a few of them seem to be a bit... well, dumb. There's certain things that are plenty controversial given religion and science, fact and fiction, or however you want to put it. But American history is a little less debatable than the origin of religion and the interpretation of God's word. One of them is a heck of a lot more recent than the other, for one thing.
Sandra Need, a member of the executive board on the Committee to Support the Los Angeles Seal Ordinance said, "The founders (of America) all believed in God and lived by the Ten Commandments."
Uhm, no! Look, one of the things we (and I do mean Californians; it might differ state to state) learned without controversy (that is, "er, you'll learn this when you're older," or "you need to get your parent's permission to learn about this...") is the history of America. It's pretty indisputable, for the most part. We know who the "founding fathers" were, and we know lots about them.
Let's go back a bit further, though. Think back to why the Puritans first came to America. In a nutshell, they were being persecuted for their choice of religion. That's the whole idea behind America (and look how far we've come): freedom! Freedom from a lot of things, but freedom OF many things, as well. There is a difference. So many people came to America to have their freedom to practice whatever they want, to believe what they want. It didn't work perfectly everywhere, but it was a heck of a lot better than in England, where Protestants killed Catholics and vice versa, for over 100 years!
To get to the point, look at a few of the founding fathers:
"I have examined all the known superstitions of the world, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth." --SIX HISTORIC AMERICANS, by John E. Remsburg. Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to William Short
John Adams signed the Treaty of Tripoli. Article 11 states: "The Government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion."
Thomas Paine: "I would not dare to so dishonor my Creator God by attaching His name to that book (the Bible)."
Consider this.
Now, I think it's all well and good that a little girl who was originally a cynic discovered that the power pf the dollar bill and how "In God We Trust" could let the courts prove some old man was Kris Kringle. But honestly? I've never liked that on the bill, and I don't like the idea of prayer before Supreme Court gets into session, or the idea of the Ten Commandments being displayed in every school around the nation. I understand that they are all very important things, and the Ten Commandments in many ways can be construed as the foundation of all our laws, BUT that does not mean that everyone in the nation has to be constantly bombarded with the concept of "one god, one faith," when that's not what America is built on at all. One religion and the pushing of it leads to oppression of other people, and that's NEVER right. I'm not saying other religions don't do it, but certainly not as badly as Christianity does here in America.
I guess what I'm trying to get at here is not whether things like the Ten Commandments on display are right or wrong, but how a person making a statement on behalf of an organization for religious purposes (like I said, other people signed the petition because it represented CA history, with missions, etc.) can make such a stupid statement! You don't even have to do a lot of research to find out the majority of the founding fathers either made no statement toward religion one way or the other, or disagreed entirely with religion, and were atheists, agnostics, or deists!
Yeesh.
There's more to be said and told, but things have to be finished first... tomorrow's ballet, and I hope I don't still have this tummy ache! There's webpages to be coded (SMRFF, BEA, Darkness Rising, The Rose Chronicles), fics to be written (3 oneshots, WDKY16, DAA2), and other things to be done, I'm sure... like figure out Newsgroups, and how I can get the binary attachments on groups when I'm on a free reader. X_X
Today's Menu features delicious controversy!
But first, choose from our appetizers:
* Piracy, available served warm or chilled
* Religion a'la mode (choose from Strawberry, Vanilla, Blueberry, Chocolate, or Neapolitan)
[Poll #448267]
The reason I created this poll is due to the fact that I, probably like many other people, have mixed views on piracy. I have loads of MP3s on my computer, programs I haven't paid for, and even some anime episodes. Of course, I can justify that not all soundtracks are available --they can be out of print or only available import. Sometimes I have paid $50 for a CD imported! But where does all that money go, even if it's a legit CD? The same thing applies to anime-- sometimes the fansubs are better than the licensed version. But once licensed, distribution of a fansub is supposed to stop-- so people like me turn to P2Ps and bittorrents. In the case of burned games, I have only a few Japanese versions of DDR, but I can't even play them until I get my PS2 modded. I prefer them over the equivalent US releases, because they have more familiar songs and options. What to do when the same games in Japan are out of print? I could try and find or import a legit copy, but how do I really know? Plus, I'd be paying far too much for something I'm not "supposed" to have!
How do you draw the line between what is allowed (MP3s, etc.) to what is blatantly illegal (anime piracy)?
This whole controversy was spurred by an article in today's Daily News, on page 13. It's titled "Cross-on-county-seal petition fails." The article addresses how a petition started to try and get a cross back on the Los Angeles County Seal (removed after the ACLU threatened to sue over the cross representing government promoting a religious establishment) failed, since it fell short of the required number of signatures on the petition.
I could argue with you over the crosses and everything, but first let's start with the background-- some people want the cross back on because it represents California's history, and our many missions and Spanish background. I fully understand and appreciate all that, but isn't there another way to depict it? How about the picture of a mission, or maybe a Spanish missionary in robes with a rosary-- and no big crosses? I'm sure there are plenty of other ways of showing California's Spanish history.
The thing that got my goat was how the majority of the supporters were obviously priests and pastors of various churches throughout Los Angeles. I respect and admire them for their dedication and faith, but a few of them seem to be a bit... well, dumb. There's certain things that are plenty controversial given religion and science, fact and fiction, or however you want to put it. But American history is a little less debatable than the origin of religion and the interpretation of God's word. One of them is a heck of a lot more recent than the other, for one thing.
Sandra Need, a member of the executive board on the Committee to Support the Los Angeles Seal Ordinance said, "The founders (of America) all believed in God and lived by the Ten Commandments."
Uhm, no! Look, one of the things we (and I do mean Californians; it might differ state to state) learned without controversy (that is, "er, you'll learn this when you're older," or "you need to get your parent's permission to learn about this...") is the history of America. It's pretty indisputable, for the most part. We know who the "founding fathers" were, and we know lots about them.
Let's go back a bit further, though. Think back to why the Puritans first came to America. In a nutshell, they were being persecuted for their choice of religion. That's the whole idea behind America (and look how far we've come): freedom! Freedom from a lot of things, but freedom OF many things, as well. There is a difference. So many people came to America to have their freedom to practice whatever they want, to believe what they want. It didn't work perfectly everywhere, but it was a heck of a lot better than in England, where Protestants killed Catholics and vice versa, for over 100 years!
To get to the point, look at a few of the founding fathers:
"I have examined all the known superstitions of the world, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth." --SIX HISTORIC AMERICANS, by John E. Remsburg. Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to William Short
John Adams signed the Treaty of Tripoli. Article 11 states: "The Government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion."
Thomas Paine: "I would not dare to so dishonor my Creator God by attaching His name to that book (the Bible)."
Consider this.
Now, I think it's all well and good that a little girl who was originally a cynic discovered that the power pf the dollar bill and how "In God We Trust" could let the courts prove some old man was Kris Kringle. But honestly? I've never liked that on the bill, and I don't like the idea of prayer before Supreme Court gets into session, or the idea of the Ten Commandments being displayed in every school around the nation. I understand that they are all very important things, and the Ten Commandments in many ways can be construed as the foundation of all our laws, BUT that does not mean that everyone in the nation has to be constantly bombarded with the concept of "one god, one faith," when that's not what America is built on at all. One religion and the pushing of it leads to oppression of other people, and that's NEVER right. I'm not saying other religions don't do it, but certainly not as badly as Christianity does here in America.
I guess what I'm trying to get at here is not whether things like the Ten Commandments on display are right or wrong, but how a person making a statement on behalf of an organization for religious purposes (like I said, other people signed the petition because it represented CA history, with missions, etc.) can make such a stupid statement! You don't even have to do a lot of research to find out the majority of the founding fathers either made no statement toward religion one way or the other, or disagreed entirely with religion, and were atheists, agnostics, or deists!
Yeesh.
There's more to be said and told, but things have to be finished first... tomorrow's ballet, and I hope I don't still have this tummy ache! There's webpages to be coded (SMRFF, BEA, Darkness Rising, The Rose Chronicles), fics to be written (3 oneshots, WDKY16, DAA2), and other things to be done, I'm sure... like figure out Newsgroups, and how I can get the binary attachments on groups when I'm on a free reader. X_X
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-03-04 07:21 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-03-04 08:03 am (UTC)So technically, dates and names- that we can't argue, but what really happened in the past- that is debatable unless you were really *there* when that situation occured.
By the way, it's a *fact* that this entire nation was built on the basic traditional view of the Judeo-Christian religion. And while there were some who claimed to be agnostics or atheists, the majority did believe in the concept of God. After all, if they disagreed with the concept- why would they have signed the Declaration of Independence which actually mentions God in several parts?
Ie: "We hold these truths self-evident that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."
The dollar bill to this day, still states: "In God we trust..."
While most of the Founding Fathers were Christians, they all knew that they did not want the same thing that happened to them happening in their own created nation. After all, the Puritans that arrived were chased out of their mother country due to their religious belief. They don't want to create a seperation of the nation just because of religious beliefs- which is why we have to freedom to practice it or not. That's also why they don't mention Jesus or the Mary in any of our nation's original documents. Those are *distinctly* Christian.
It's silly that we should remove the word "God" from our vocabulary just because the majority of the public immediately link it to the Judeo-Christian religion.
By the way, you don't actually have to put your hand on the Bible and swear an oath. All you have to do is just basically tell the court you will not lie under any circumstances to whatever questions may be presented to you.
It's also the reason you can argue the founding fathers created the Electoral College (though as useless as it may seem) because they predicted that the general public possessed less than the admirable IQ points. The Electoral College is basically there to state for certain who the next president really is.
no subject
Date: 2005-03-04 08:06 am (UTC)On the subject of piracy--Part one
Date: 2005-03-04 08:54 am (UTC)It's one thing to share music. I get really huffy about this topic, because without sharing the music, who is ever going to hear it and want to go out and buy certain albulms anyway?
I have news for the music industry: I think about 85% of the junk you pump out *SUCKS*. And it ticks me off to find that 10% of the 15% that doesn't suck never even gets played on the radio. *I* never hear it. I get sent this stuff by friends as a way of recommending it to me, this way I don't go out and buy the albulm to find I didn't like it, even though they did.
And yet this is considered wrong. Even though it's spreading the music, and getting other people to like it and go out and buy it.
That's number one.
Second point on that: CD's are not cheap. Here's another little message for the music industry--most normal people cannot really afford to pay 15 bucks when they only like one song on a damn albulm anyway (I have plenty of exceptions to this--Alanis Morrisette's Jagged Little Pill album, Maroon 5's albulm, Metallica's Black albulm, to name a few of CDs where I liked almost the entire thing as opposed to 1 song or 2). A lot of you don't understand. You don't know what it's like to go to a store, pray you have enough for the stuff you want, not find singles--which makes this harder--find the song you wanted on an albulm full of songs you've heard already and don't like, or songs you later listen to and find aren't as good as the one you bought the albulm for. So let's say you want about five songs, all by different artists. In the end, you end up spending 75 dollars just for five songs. With hope you'll end up liking a few other songs on the albulm, but that doesn't often happen.
And I know I'm only covering music, but that's because I just went shopping for CD's a little while ago, and I was thinking of this while in line to pay--I'm not even kidding. I wish I was.
Right, next point. In all honesty, half of the music I want is from the 80's, and while maybe I can catch it on the radio, it's time-consuming and annoying to sit through all of this stuff I dislike to just hear one song, then get lucky to maybe hear it again a month later. Yet, you can't find it in stores. Or it's hard to find. Ect, ect...the list really goes on.
Look, I don't have time to search through the endless sea of misplaced CD's for *ONE*, and Wal Mart probably won't have it either. Heck, they only had one Shakira albulm! Talk about disappointing. It wasn't even an important one either way, just a remix one that didn't have the song I wanted. In the end, I'll have to spend more money on gas to drive to the next city, go to the mall, and spend an extra three bucks to finally get the albulm I want, and yet you, the music industry, say *WE* are robbing *YOU*? Considering if we weigh how much I make against what you make, it sure doesn't look like we're robbing you of anything.
Get over it. Stop whining about file sharing. If you didn't suck so much and produced more than one song per albulm that was *WORTH* keeping, and if you lowered the price a little so people could afford to buy music without wincing for only two albulms then PEOPLE MIGHT NOT HAVE RESORTED TO THIS LEVEL OF FILE SHARING IN THE FIRST PLACE.
USE YOUR HEADS!
You'd make a hell of a lot more money if you gave people more convenience and consideration.
What makes me sick is how much this country runs on currency--it's SICK, SICK, SICK!
You take all of the honour and beauty out of what performing and music is really supposed to be. It is supposed to be about giving your and heart and soul to how you move and sound. It is supposed to be an expression of emotion. You commercialize it. Do you realise the true stem was from back when people told stories. That's right, bards.
On the subject of piracy--Part 2
Date: 2005-03-04 09:03 am (UTC)So what if they weren't talked about for years to come? They didn't care. That wasn't the point of what they did.
Yet, artists today have no such concern for the people who listen to their music. They neither realise who their audience is mostly made up of, nor they do care. All they care about is making money, and woe belongs to he who dares even alter those earnings just a little. They no longer care about how they perform, how good they are, or how much they are enjoyed.
Here's an idea--get over yourselves and stop charging an arm and a leg just because you're so great. You're human just like everyone else; you did not become special just because you can sing and dance. Obviously, from the amount of CDs in the store, you're not the only one who can do it. It's being marketed, you know, that ability.
What makes anyone special is how much of their heart and soul they are willing to put into something, and not for the sake of earning for themselves. Perhaps that's an unrealistic view point, but this is coming from someone who's been doing things for others with little to no return for ages. Just to see someone smile. Just to see a little face light up with joy, or to have a friend laugh, grin, enjoy something. So, if you're going to say that's an unrealistic view point, you might as well say I'm unrealistic, or not real. I am real. Very real. I do exist and am typing this, after all.
In fact, because of this view point, I do believe that burning a CD and *CHARGING* someone for it is *WRONG*. Why, because it's someone trying to make a profit off of something they didn't do anything for. It's not right. I don't promote that. File sharing is one thing, because that's how music is spread. This is how people in this country found out about Nightwish, and how I find it and just feel absolutely in love and do plan to order their albulms--that's just going to take a while since I need the money first.
Either way, burning a disc and charging for it is *NOT* sharing. It's dishonest, since you in no way had any way of making that albulm, therefore shouldn't charge. No, I don't care it cost you to buy the discs, nor do I care that it "took time" to burn the songs. It's not right. You're trying to profit off of something that's not yours, and you know people will flock to you since you charge less than the store. That's also taking advantage of the main nature of your fellow human beings. When doing this, it still isn't a labour of love.
A lot of people need to remember what really counts and matters in life. I think it's just so sad that so much emphasis is placed on money, and living costs so much, causing money to be a big deal, because, hey, you will die if you don't eat, after all. It's depressing. Because of that, people start thinking money is really, super important. This leads to all of these other problems, and the important things in life get forgotten.
But hey, that's just my two cents, and at near three in the morning, I'm sure it's really only worth about one cent, not to mention litered with typos who knows what else. I'm sure to be embarrased about this in the morning.
I know movies and programs weren't covered, but programs falls under the same area as most of the music does. It's supposed to be a labour of love. Movies, I can understand the upset. It's not like music albulms where only one or two songs are liked--if you like a movie, you'll get at least 1 hour's worth of entertainment for 7-10 bucks. Don't tell that's a rip-off when compared to 4-5 minutes of entertainment for 15. Just don't.
On the subject of piracy--Part 3
Date: 2005-03-04 09:04 am (UTC)We've already watched what you're going to show--and we just don't care. We badly want to pick up where we left off. I guess that would be argued as a lack of self-control and patience, but really, it shouldn't take a company that long to go through a series. Even more so, when they disgustingly only put 3-4 episodes on a disc that costs anywhere from 20-30 bucks. That's hardly fair. If you're gonna charge that much, at least make it worth it and pack the episodes on. That only makes sense when the series is 100+ episodes. ~_~;; Ever try to collect a 100+ series on DVD's done by idiots out to make a profit off a devoted fan? It's *HARD*.... You run out of room...then just end up getting rid of the DVD's anyway so you can have more space again. Preferrably for only 26 episode series that have 6-7 episodes a disc.
X___X I'm done. Really. I'm done.
I'm gonna be shot for this
Date: 2005-03-04 11:33 pm (UTC)Before I begin this opposing argument, I’d like to make it clear that this is my opinion! I’m not trying to belittle anyone else’s opinion. I’m not trying to persuade anyone to think differently. That said, I want to make my biases clear:
1. I dislike the ACLU. I’m not saying that all of their causes are bad, I’m saying that - to me - the ACLU is kinda like communism. It looks good on paper but when put in practice it becomes something else entirely. In the ACLU’s case, they’re supposed to be working to protect civil liberties, and much of their work seems to be aimed at taking AWAY civil liberties from certain groups.
2. I was raised Catholic/Christian. I left the church a long time ago. I believe in God, and I revere Christ not as the Son of Man but as a very effective prophet, someone to aspire to, like the Saints.
About the cross thing - I’m glad you gave alternatives to the cross, however, I must wonder what is the difference between a picture of a cross, mission, or Spanish missionary? They all have to do with the same thing and contain virtually the same or similar connotations. Also, I really don’t understand why a CROSS is opposed. A CRUCIFIX I could understand, a CROSS, not so much. For instance, I wear a cross rather than a crucifix around my neck due to my confusion of whether Jesus was the Son of Man/Messiah. They mean different things and they have different historical value. Speaking of history, a cross (not crucifix since I think THAT has more of a religious context) would be appropriate in a historical set due to the fact that California was a Spanish colony. I think everyone knows that Spain was ultra-Catholic to the point that only *proven* Catholics (via the Inquisition) could go to the colonies.
I’m confused as to how the majority of supporters being clergy is a surprise. And I don’t understand how you can lump them all into the “dumb” category (I’m not disputing that some of them ARE – I’m not a fan of the clergy in any sense, but generalizations are dangerous no matter who they are aimed at). And I TOTALLY dispute you on this: There's certain things that are plenty controversial given religion and science, fact and fiction, or however you want to put it. But American history is a little less debatable than the origin of religion and the interpretation of God's word.
As a historian, I can tell you that almost NOTHING is cut and dry in American history or any other history for that matter. The Bible (or God’s Word) is a history in and of itself, therefore, it’s open to the same questioning and interpretation. The age of the histories does not matter. There will never be a totally objective or complete history of ANY ONE THING, NATION, PERSON, OR ISSUE, and as such, there will always be debates, new interpretations, and - better - new evidence to incorporate. As for the religious/science debate, I’ve always been of the opinion that the two do NOT contradict each other. Rather - in my world - there’s a very clear harmony between them, so I’m not gonna get into it.
Re: I'm gonna be shot for this
Date: 2005-03-05 06:41 am (UTC)I personally think that a cross is a much more obvious statement of Christianity, while an unadorned mission or missionary isn't so "pushy." True, I'd have much more of a problem with the seal if it had a bloody Jesus on it, but the fact that it has a cross on there bothers me. I don't support the ACLU in everything they do, and I can totally see the logic behind keeping the cross on there for HISTORICAL reasons, but there are people out there who don't care about the history-- it's about "pimping their religion."
I don't-- it was this one woman, and it just surprised me that someone coming from an executive board could say something so... unfounded. I certainly don't lump everyone into that category, and I'm sorry if it came off that way.
But wouldn't you say that it's much easier to understand and interpret things in regards to events only a few hundred years ago, as opposed to a few THOUSAND? Sure, they might not be cut and dry since we weren't there, but there's probably less things that can be argued about, right?
Re: I'm gonna be shot for this
Date: 2005-03-05 03:42 pm (UTC)Ok, I can buy that. I really don't agree that a cross is "pushy" since - to me - it's not really a religious symbol but a life symbol (the crosses we must bear, etc), but I understand that certain things mean different things to folks. Afterall, I have problems with the Confederate flag being displayed.
there are people out there who don't care about the history-- it's about "pimping their religion."
;-; how can anyone not care about history???? (j/k) As for "pimping" as you say, you cannot get around the fact that California was built by a bunch of ultra-Catholics. And do you really think something on the county seal is gonna change anyone's belief system? Or is this about representation? I'm just amazed that little things like that take up so much passion. It's mind boggling to me, and I really wish I could understand better.
And no. Understanding and interpreting things are just as hard 300 years ago than 3000. Why on earth do you think people are still writing about it? There are way too many unanswered questions, and there will always be issues of agency and what was he/she thinking? Certainly there are more written texts to be found from all sides when talking about more current histories, but that doesn't mean it's easier to decipher what happened because you always have to wonder if this person writing was being honest or not depending on what the document is and if there was an intended audience, then you get into a whole other set of questions. I've studied ancient and modern histories, and I can safely say, it's no easier, and things can be as easily argued now as well as then (there are books about how Lincoln was NOT assassinated and faked his own death!)
Re: I'm gonna be shot for this
Date: 2005-03-05 07:07 pm (UTC)I had no idea that things from the more recent past were just as hard to interpret as things from the ancient past-- I figured with more printed material, more educated people, etc. that we'd be able to make a firmer grasp on things that, without a doubt, happened. Not necessarily who believed what, but what happened when and where.
Re: I'm gonna be shot for this
Date: 2005-03-05 09:11 pm (UTC)I guess I'm just different . . . or something. Though I have my own religious beliefs, I've never felt uncomfortable in a mosque, at temple, or any other place of a different faith system (I've yet to visit a Buddhist temple or other notably Oriental places of worship). I looked at it as a learning experience. Then again, Religious studies is my primary passion. So, I suppose the explains some things.
Yep, it's the plight of the historian. Everything is open to debate. And since there are so many "specialist" historians nowadays, it's even MORE ridiculously questionable. NEVER get an Marxist historian and a capitalist historian together . . . you might just get hurt (j/k).
I'm gonna be shot for this Part II
Date: 2005-03-04 11:36 pm (UTC)By the way, the Puritans weren’t “persecuted” (at least not in the strictest sense). They were hassled, yes. But it wasn’t like England had an Inquisition like - say - Spain. The Puritans made a deal with the English government. They were still citizens of England. They were not cutting ties with anyone for freedom. They had freedom to practice their religion in England (as did many other sects). What they protested was the fact that there was a state religion (Anglicanism) which all citizens were basically forced to practice despite their spiritual affiliation. They were also required to PAY said religion.
it was a heck of a lot better than in England, where Protestants killed Catholics and vice versa, for over 100 years!
I’m somewhat confused here too – Puritan does not equal Catholic, it’s a Protestant religion; and by the time the Puritans came to North America the religious killings had died down significantly. Depending on the monarch’s religious affiliation, Catholics could damn well kill Protestants just as ferociously. Ever hear of Bloody Mary, Elizabeth I’s older sister?
And it was NOT better in the North American colonies. People were prone to prosecution here as much as they were in England or anywhere else. For goodness sake, they hung Quaker missionaries in Massachusettes!
Re: I'm gonna be shot for this Part II
Date: 2005-03-05 06:46 am (UTC)I had to start the story in reference to the Los Angeles seal with the cross, and continue on to what Sandra Need said, which also encompasses another current event, the display of the Ten Commandments in government public squares. Sandra Need was referring to the founding fathers of the United States of America (from context), and the {of America) bit was added by the newspaper, as far as I can tell.
So what I was going at was that not all the founding fathers believed in a God that took an active role in the daily lives of humans, etc. She's wrong to say that they all believed or liked the Ten Commandments, even if they are the source of most/all our laws (it gets more complex with today's laws).
And I'm 100% aware that prosecution was bad everywhere-- that's why I said "vice versa" in reference to the Catholics vs. Protestants killings (from 1500 or 1600 onward for a few hundred years, right?) And also, I said that it wasn't perfect in the North American colonies (like you said, Quakers, but also other people killed in Salem, etc.)
Re: I'm gonna be shot for this Part II
Date: 2005-03-05 04:06 pm (UTC)You see those kind of little additions to quotes scare me, cuz it makes you wonder if someone is misrepresenting what was said. Newspapers have been known to do things like that.
No, they did not believe in the Christian God (SOME of them didn't), but they did believe in a Higher Power, and they understood that they had to set things up to protect the diverse faiths of the people (who were overwhelmingly Christian). <---- is because of the masses that I have such a hard time with this emphasis on the "founding fathers" who were 1. a handful of men and 2. in the minority class-wise anyway. Sure they are responsible for our government, but I'm a history-from-below historian. To me, the people are the ones in power, not the so called "national leader." I guess my biases are coming out there.
She's wrong to say that they all believed or liked the Ten Commandments, even if they are the source of most/all our laws (it gets more complex with today's laws).
First of all, none of us can say what anyone else believes at any given time. We can only make assumptions. Like I said, just because someone writes something doesn't mean they actually believe it in or not believe in it. That is a totally intellectual field and one that cannot be traced concretely. Second, other than commandments 1, 2, 3, and 4 what is there not to agree with (you shall not kill, steal, commit adultery, bear false witness, covet your neighbor's possesions, honor the 'rents)? How about a comprimise? The Six Commandments. Third, I keep wondering why there seems to be all of this emphasis on the Ten Commandments (in all of the controversies). Would it be better if we put up Hammurabi's Code? The Napoleonic Code? Would that make a difference. Sheesh, the Ten Commandments take up a whole two inches of one column of the Bible. It is also in the Jewish Holy Books and the Qu'ran (actually I think the Qu'ran has an extended version). To make the TC a totally Christian thing is a fallacy on all sides of the conflict.
Missed the vice versa - Sorry.
Re: I'm gonna be shot for this Part II
Date: 2005-03-05 07:14 pm (UTC)I'm gonna be shot for this Part III
Date: 2005-03-04 11:39 pm (UTC)As for the quotes. I really, REALLY dislike it when people quote something without giving context cuz what comes before or after the selection can usually turn the meaning around on its head . Anyway, responses:
1. Thomas Jefferson: Notice how he is not disputing Christianity due to the actual FAITH (or “or superstitions” as he calls them) but how people reacted to and implemented the faith –> Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? He’s not arguing against the actual religion, but how people who profess it are not made better by it – they become either “fools” or “hypocrites.
Furthermore, Jefferson had no faith whatsoever in the common man. The founding fathers were all “gentlemen” meaning they were 1. Wealthy and 2. Educated. The only one of note that WASN’T was Benjamin Franklin, and he became wealthy due to hard work and educating himself. The common man wasn’t educated, and if he was, a large part of it was devoted to the study and practice of Christianity. Since the majority was primarily Christian (and it cannot be overstated that the MAJORITY was Christian), it was very important not to alienate them or risk their support.
2. John Adams: He’s right. The U.S. of A. wasn’t founded on the Christian religion. It was founded on a set of ideologies emphasizing power of the individual, freedom, liberty, and republicanism. Does that mean he’s refuting Christianity? Possibly, possibly not.
3. Thomas Paine: Paine was a Deist, hence his invokation of “my Creator God.” Paine’s main gripes with the Bible can be seen here - Thomas Paine’s “Biblical Blasphemy”
I've never liked that on the bill, and I don't like the idea of prayer before Supreme Court gets into session, or the idea of the Ten Commandments being displayed in every school around the nation.
1. I - for one - am not bothered by the “In God we Trust” line on money (mostly because I don’t notice anything ON money save for the amount of tender it represents ^_^); however I’m indifferent, there can be arguments on both sides - simply not liking it isn’t enough. I don’t like a lot of things about government (for instance, just because I don’t like the Jefferson Memorial - sexist, racist pig as he was - doesn’t mean I think it should be torn down). A for argument is that the majority of people in the United States DO believe in God or some supreme deity that can be called God. An against argument could be that using the title “God” on MONEY is blasphemous due the fact that “love of money is the root of all evil”. Of course, those are religiously based. There are entirely different sets for LEGAL arguments.
2. I’m really not understanding the dislike of prayer before the Supreme Court goes into session. No one said everyone had to participate. No one said that everyone had to pray to the same god. If you’re Muslim, pray to Allah during that time. If you’re Buddhist, pray to Buddha. If you’re atheist, simply do something else in the interim. Or hell, no matter what you are, you have the option of simply waiting it out.
3. The Ten Commandments are NOT displayed in every school. Where did you hear that? I’m gonna get into the Ten Commandments bit in a second.
I understand that they are all very important things, and the Ten Commandments in many ways can be construed as the foundation of all our laws,
It can not be construed, IT IS the foundation of all our laws as well as the law codes of nearly every Western nation.
Re: I'm gonna be shot for this Part III
Date: 2005-03-05 06:53 am (UTC)Yet on the same token, the idea of saying "Under God" in the pledge, or of there being a prayer before a government ceremony *bothers* me. Yes, someone can do something else with that time, pray for something else-- but honestly, why have such a ceremony to begin with? What's the point?
And I know the Ten Commandments aren't displayed in every school, but the article I was reading (or at least the sister article about the Supreme Court case regarding the Ten Commandments on display) had someone say that we'd be better off with children being aware of the Ten Commandments and having them in their face every day at school. I hate that. If you want to mix religion and school, do it elsewhere-- a private school, Sunday school, whatever-- not my public schools.
Also, if the Ten Commandments are, without any doubt, the basis for the laws and codes of all the Western nations, what about the Eastern/Asian ones? Where did they get their laws from, if not from the Ten Commandments? I think it's more about common sense or logic-- goodwill toward humanity, if you will. I could argue that a man wrote the Bible, and therefore it's just someone else's words-- not like God himself tossed down a bound book at someone's head. Is there actually some ancient Bible comprised of what the Saints said (and contradicted) written in Aramaic or Latin or whatever? Does some museum have the Ark of the Covenant with the Ten Commandments in it? I'm being super-cynical here, and probably too worked up.
Sorry.
Re: I'm gonna be shot for this Part III
Date: 2005-03-05 05:04 pm (UTC)Don't be so fast. Visit then decide if you wanna live somewhere else. Trust me on this. And it really gets me how people seem to think (not all just some) that to be a patriot you have to LOVE your country so much you just ignore the flaws and become some yes-man/woman. My chosen profession basically requires that I be a traitor to my own country. And think of it this way, you would tell your best friend if she was being a bitch, right? And even though you disagree with her actions or words, you still love her, yes? That - to me - is what true patriotism is, seeing, recognizing, and acknowledging the flaws but loving it anyway and trying to FIX those flaws to the best of your ability. And yeah, that was a small rant. Forgive me.
Yet on the same token, the idea of saying "Under God" in the pledge, or of there being a prayer before a government ceremony *bothers* me.
The pledge thing -- if the phrase "Under God" was the only issue, the WHOLE pledge would not have been contested. Period. And that's what irks me about the whole thing. Don't wanna say the phrase, it's very simple - take that phrase out or revert to the original pledge which has nothing of the sort in it.
I really wanna know, why does prayer in a government ceremony bug ya? Or is it just something you protest on principle?
honestly, why have such a ceremony to begin with? What's the point?
Other than the fact that some people enjoy it? I know I do, but then I'm USUALLY praying in some form or another. It comes with not having a congregation to be a part of I guess, missing that sense of community. It also breeds a sort of confidence to know that the folks in charge are asking for some measure of guidance, that they're not relying on their biases. (I'm just saying what others might say). If ya wanna get technical, it can also be seen as a tone-setter (serious/somber). And - I do have a reason for asking this - have you ever been to Washington, D.C.?
*laughs hysterically* I'd love to meet that person cuz - honestly, when have you ever known a child to actually READ something that didn't have pictures in it! Even if they did manage to do it, I doubt it would have much effect. Kids will misbehave no matter what you do, and I think the goings on in the private schools proves that. I have to wonder about how you feel about religious clubs in schools?
Re: I'm gonna be shot for this Part III
Date: 2005-03-05 07:26 pm (UTC)I'm not going to repeat the whole schpiel about the pledge-- in ROTC, I never said the "Under God" part, and that's never been what bugged me about it. Plenty of people can omit that if they want, and I do realize it was added, and not original. Same goes for the "In God We Trust" on dollar bills. That's new dating from the Civil War.
Prayer in a government ceremony -well, there's just no way I can say this nicely- seems like a waste of time. You get a somber nature to begin with, people realize that perjury is punishable by law, etc. I think prayer and worship should be kept out of the government as best as possible-- even if it can't be done totally, at least it can remain a private home issue-- prayer makes it public.
No, I've never been to D.C. o_O...
And yeah, religious clubs in school bothered me a LOT, because we had a Christian club, but no other clubs until much later-- and even then, there was only a Jewish club. To even suggest there being Unitarian, Wiccan, Buddhist, or any other clubs would have riled up the administration, and I lived in SF!
Re: I'm gonna be shot for this Part III
Date: 2005-03-05 09:20 pm (UTC)I guess it depends on where you live cuz in my school we started out with a Christian club . . . that's all we had while I was there, but I understand there's now a Muslim club and a Buddhist club. Not sure about anything else but - then again - down here there isn't that much of a wide array of religious practices >-< The administration though is pretty liberal about student agency (which is the ONLY nice thing I can possibly say about them). So, virtually any group can form a club as long as they have more than 5 members and convince a sponsor to supervise them.
Re: I'm gonna be shot for this Part III
Date: 2005-03-05 05:05 pm (UTC)The Bible was written by several people, in several places, and at several different times . . . The Old Testament was written in entirety BEFORE Jesus was born and the New Testament was began at least 65 years after Jesus' death and NOT by his 12 apostles. I believe that the Bible as we know it was written over a 1500 year period. And if God HAD thrown it down, it would have been a library of scrolls ^_~ Not a bound book, those hadn't been invented yet. The original scrolls of the Bible were written in Aramaic and Hebrew, then the Old Testament was translated into Greek then Latin then English, then the New Testament was translated into English. As for some "ancient Bible comprised of what the Saints said," there are missing books . . . or theorized missing books that have not been canonized therefore they wouldn't be part of the CATHOLIC Bible per se (I think some Protestant churches accept them as Scripture). The Book of Thomas, Mary Magdalene, and the Dead Sea Scrolls are examples. Most of the Saints have left behind written thoughts on religion as well. It depends one what Saint you're talking about. St. Augustine is probably the best known for his religious theories as well as St. Thomas Aquinas. But no, they could never be part of the Bible - for a variety of reasons. As for the Ark -- Ron Wyatt claimed to have found it in 1982. I put emphasis on "claimed". The people of Axum in Ethiopia also claim to have it. Most scholars believe it is somewhere in Jerusalem since traditionally it was not supposed to be moved from the Holy city.
And it's ok to be super-cynical or otherwise. My own attitude is questioning but open (though I used to be super-cynical much like you, I was also ultra-Catholic at one point). I look at the world as a huge miracle, and I can't think of any other explanations than that there is something hugely bigger than everything out there. But, don't let things like this get you worked up (I can assure that I'm not - at least until they tell me I can't wear my cross, say the word "God" outloud, or pray silently in public). If you don't believe, you don't have to. And don't let anyone else make you think you have to. I think everyone has to look at what's there and come to their own conclusions. If it drives you one way, the other, or a path less traveled that's fine. Just do what feels right to you so that you can be comfortable in your views and -- why did I go off on a tangent?
Anyway, thank you for sharing! It was enlightening to me! And . . . Nevermind, I think I've bored/provoked/pissed you enough.
Re: I'm gonna be shot for this Part III
Date: 2005-03-05 07:28 pm (UTC)1) history
2) debates
3) learning new things
And you gave me all three!
THANK YOU!!
I'm gonna be shot for this Part IV
Date: 2005-03-04 11:40 pm (UTC)Last time I checked, no one was bombarding anyone else. I understand that not everyone believes in the Christian, Jewish, and Islamic God. If you call an occasional statue of the Ten Commandments “bombarding”, I daresay you’d hate it in Italy or Spain where there’s a Catholic Church around every corner. We aren’t a nation of “one god, one faith.” We ARE - however - a nation of religious tolerance (or we’re supposed to be). And it’s a two way street. Non-Christians need to be tolerant of Christians just as Christians need to be tolerant of non-Christians, and so on and so forth. And I do have to make this point: the Ten Commandments ARE NOT a Christian invention. The Ten Commandments were written/recorded whatever by MOSES who was born a Jew (or so they say) and raised as an EGYPTIAN (who were polytheistic) centuries before Jesus was even born. It is essentially a law code, a Jewish religious and state law code. And that “Thou shalt have no other gods before me” commandment does not mean “Thou shalt have no other gods but me”. It simply meant Yahweh was supposed to be the principle god, and indeed, the Jews were polytheistic for a VERY LONG time afterwards, and even when they were monotheistic, they still believed in a person’s personal god who was guardian over them and them alone.
One religion and the pushing of it leads to oppression of other people, and that's NEVER right. I'm not saying other religions don't do it, but certainly not as badly as Christianity does here in America.
Can you give examples of how Christianity has oppressed people in the United States? And I don’t mean by putting up the Ten Commandments, or praying in court, at football games, saying the Pledge of Allegiance with “under God” (do NOT get me started on that one), or “In God we Trust” on money. I mean honest oppression or persecution on a mass scale.
By the way, do you have any basis for comparison?
I guess what I'm trying to get at here is not whether things like the Ten Commandments on display are right or wrong, but how a person making a statement on behalf of an organization for religious purposes (like I said, other people signed the petition because it represented CA history, with missions, etc.) can make such a stupid statement!
Not such a stupid statement, depending on which founding fathers you’re talking about. Spanish colonies were vastly different from English ones, and yes you DO have to make that distinction when talking about a certain state’s history. My own state is a prime example of that.
Re: I'm gonna be shot for this Part IV
Date: 2005-03-05 06:56 am (UTC)But I feel oppressed constantly when I hear about how "un-Christian" this thing or that thing is. Obviously, that's not the kind of oppression that makes people horribly miserable day to day; it's a mental perception. Even without regard to Christianity, it's everywhere.
Re: I'm gonna be shot for this Part IV
Date: 2005-03-05 05:37 pm (UTC)I don't understand, if you're not Christian, then why would someone else's opinion about what is un-Christian be of any interest or concern? My family is religious, and my mother cried, bitched, and wailed when I left the church as did my Grandmother, a cousin wanted to disown me, and a certain deacon in the family gave me a huge lecture on Why-the-Catholic-Religion-was-the-only-Right-Way, and I still didn't feel remotely oppressed or even offended. I felt bad for them that they were so indoctrinated that they couldn't see that I was of sound mind and comfortable with my own decision. I won't even mention what people outside of my family have said. But I don't feel oppressed. I feel everyone has the right to think the way they think, regardless. If folks want to call me an atheist, that's fine cuz I know what I believe and that's all that matters. (And I realize that you do not necessarily think the way I do, nor should you.) It takes too much energy being on the defensive all the time against folks who are too close-minded to listen.
(By the way, be thankful you don't live in the Bible Belt.)
And Christianity is everywhere for a reason. May I point out that the Vatican is it's own nation (a gorgeous one at that), that the Holy Roman Empire was named that for a reason, that Popes have been active in politics since the papacy began, and that those pesky colonists brought all of that with them around the world. I think that says is all right there.
I'm gonna be shot for this Part V (does it ever end?)
Date: 2005-03-04 11:42 pm (UTC)The founding fathers were not extremely concerned with religion (which is why I find it so unnerving that it’s such a big issue now). They were too busy trying to 1. Break away from England and JUSTIFY themselves and 2. Build a system that would - hopefully - work without starting a civil war. Their idea to separate church and state had NOTHING to do with their Deistic tendencies and everything to do with refuting the English system of a state run religion. It has to do with ideology, the state is inherently corrupt therefore religion should be kept separate from it.
Also, there is a difference between rejecting a religion and rejecting a faith. Religion implies some form of organization, a set of dogmas and rituals. Faith is an individual matter. The founding fathers were Deists in faith (though there definitely a few exceptions who were Christian of a sort). And they DID take part in religion even if they were critical of it (it’s very important to specify criticism from outright rejection). Every one of them DID go to a church of some sort. As did Darwin even though he was an atheist. (By the way, deism and agnosticism are religions on their own. Many people have a habit of equating the word religion with Christianity - something I’ve always found rather strange.)
And one more thing before I close, people who support separation of church and state often do so on principle without thinking about what such a separation could really mean. For the record, I KNOW that total separation is impossible. Every individual is a political unit, and every individual brings their religious beliefs and faith into every political action. There will only be total separation when there are no more believers, and THAT would be a complete calamity since we derive our morals from religious teachings no matter WHAT religion you practice. I’m also somewhat concerned about how cavalier many people are about the separation of church and state. For example, in a certain parish of Louisiana, the celebration of Halloween was banned. In another parish, they were talking about prohibiting the display of any religious symbol in public schools. This would mean had I been a student in one of their schools, I would not be able to wear my cross pendant, a Muslim girl would not be allowed to wear a hijab (head covering), etc.
I happen to think moderate separation is fine, but total? No. All of these cases where people are appealing to the Supreme Court over the Pledge of Allegiance, prayer in public places, the prohibition of religious symbols, and - yes - displaying of the Ten Commandments seems to be nitpicking to me and especially irritating because to deny those things are to deny MY rights and other people like me who do not HAVE a church but they do have a certain faith.
Not only that but total separation would entail the irradication of ALL religions within a state context. We would have to tear down the Statue of Liberty and all other public iconographic representations of religious entities. All superstitious displays would have to be stamped out. Religious symbols would not be permissible in dress or other forms of display. Stores with religious themes would have to be closed down as well as places of public worship. And so much more. You think I'm kidding? I would like to point out Revolutionary France and how well separating state/religious affairs went. Of course, that was "separation" at its most extreme (with a *ahem* alternative).
And though, I could say volumes more, I'll leave it at that. Sorry I'm so long winded ^_~