Double Standards, anyone?

[dwmckim]

Oooh - i've wanted one of those propeller beanies for ages - and the soy isn't at all off-pudding to me. ("Soy what" i say) But wait a minute here (thinks about this)...

If you have a hat filled with pudding, don't you inevitably end up with a lot of mousse in your hair?

 

[frogboy4]

Oooh - i've wanted one of those propeller beanies for ages - and the soy isn't at all off-pudding to me. ("Soy what" i say) But wait a minute here (thinks about this)...

If you have a hat filled with pudding, don't you inevitably end up with a lot of mousse in your hair?

Maybe I can wear it part way...

 

[MuppetsRule]

(Highlighting words for emphasis, not anger)

I would never make a blanket statement and call Christians "brainwashed", "mindless" or any such term. I also made it quite clear, countless times that I was referring to several key religious folk and not the whole.

I continued by stating that non-Christian people, going about their daily lives, don’t need to be told they are sinners when they didn’t ask for a religious opinion on their lives. (Just like we don't need to hear unsolicited opinions from Joe Shmoe on the street that the shirt we're wearing isn't our color or the cut of our jeans makes us look fat.) It’s a common courtesy that some Christians, not all, believe does not apply to witnessing. It’s what turns people off and that can't be what's intended.

But believe what you want. I never used any of the inflammatory language used in your post. Obviously you have a bone to pick with some people out there and so you focused on me.

Dude, I'm gonna just let this go because this last post seems to be in reply to something pre existing rather than something I actually said. Nonsensical posts like this make me want to hang up my hat here for good.

I do apologize if you took my statement personally. It was not intended that way. It was a statement about the tone of the thread in general. The words "brainwashed" and "controlled" were used several times in this thread (maybe not by you but others). Not only in this thread but other threads about religion as well.

There are extremists on any movements or issues - whether it's in politics and the far left or the far right, whether it's animal rights groups and PETA, whether it's the Black Panther group of the equal rights movement, whether it's the group of gays that disrupt church services, etc. But every time the example brought up is either "religious fanatics" or FOX News. Keith Olberman and his hatred of the right or Republicans is almost unlistenable but that is never the example cited. (And for the record, I think much of Fox News is unlistenable as well). It is always Sean Hannity and Fox News or Pat Robertson however that is cited. Most Christians I know (if any) don't listen to Pat Robertson ever but yet he is the one that is always cited as the face of religion. He is an extremist, but there is a tendency to group all Christians in the same group. That is just wrong, just as it would be to group all animal rights groups as PETA members, etc. I think you touched a bit on that here:

I continued by stating that non-Christian people, going about their daily lives, don’t need to be told they are sinners when they didn’t ask for a religious opinion on their lives. (Just like we don't need to hear unsolicited opinions from Joe Shmoe on the street that the shirt we're wearing isn't our color or the cut of our jeans makes us look fat.) It’s a common courtesy that some Christians, not all, believe does not apply to witnessing. It’s what turns people off and that can't be what's intended.

You stated earlier that:

There comes a point when people of faith need to live and let be, yet keep the door open for those who ask.

I would amend that to say that people (not just people of faith) need to live and let be, yet keep the door open for those who ask.



Once again Jamie I apologize if you feel that I attacked you or focused on just you. That was not the intent. The post was intended at the tone of the thread in general. I hope you keep your beany with propeller around here. Your posts are always very intelligent and thought-provoking.

 

[Drtooth]

There are extremists on any movements or issues - whether it's in politics and the far left or the far right, whether it's animal rights groups and PETA, whether it's the Black Panther group of the equal rights movement, whether it's the group of gays that disrupt church services, etc. But every time the example brought up is either "religious fanatics" or FOX News. Keith Olberman and his hatred of the right or Republicans is almost unlistenable but that is never the example cited. (And for the record, I think much of Fox News is unlistenable as well). It is always Sean Hannity and Fox News or Pat Robertson however that is cited. Most Christians I know (if any) don't listen to Pat Robertson ever but yet he is the one that is always cited as the face of religion. He is an extremist, but there is a tendency to group all Christians in the same group. That is just wrong, just as it would be to group all animal rights groups as PETA members, etc.

Firstly, I was referring to and ONLY to the fanatical far right who listen to false prophets and practice hate and intolerance... and I wasn't even complaining about them, so much as their leaders. There's a difference between being a lamb of God and the puppet of someone trying to undermine a nation's political system. Christianity and Conservativism has been all but married when Jerry Falwel (sp) created the phoney baloney "Moral Majority" in the 70's to compete with the Hippies who wanted out of Vietnam (well, most of the Hippies just jumped in for the style)... I won't go into that.\

And again, as a Christian, that sort of thing makes me a LOT more offended than anything else. Christianity is about charity and peace and all that. So far any of these televangelist types (the ones caught routinely in trysts or embezzling money) has yet to do something that good. Heck, even the Pope, at least spoke out against Iraq.

Secondly, there's a difference between the far left and the far right. People listen to the far right, and they're views are taken seriously. Look at the blatant hypocrisy in the news media, and how they're covering the Tea Bag protesters a lot more vividly and extensively than ANY of the Anti-War demonstrations. Air America is no more, but Fox's ratings and book sales have never been higher. Personally, I don't care for the extremes of both sides, but the left is treated like the harmless bunch of loonies that needn't be dignified with a response, but the far right actually has MUSCLE...

 

[RedPiggy]

I have been told by a Buddhist that my actual way of belief is very much like his except I believe in a risen Christ. By my belief of a risen Christ I have to also therefore believe that he died for our 'sins,' and I feel by that term and definition of “sin” as I am the word "normal" for, after all, what is construed as 'normal?'

I find it intriguing that a Buddhist found that strange. I respect a lot out of that tradition, owning a book that compares Buddha with Jesus, and there's a lot of common ground. Surely a Buddhist could be asked to imagine that the risen Jesus is similar in the theological point to Buddha becoming enlightened and helping others move past a life of suffering.

Pat Robertson is one of those who is what I call a fake-Christian

I call him ... well, lots of things, but for this forum I'll call him a bad Christian. The problem with calling them fake is that it introduces the No True Scotsman fallacy (and as a regular poster on Beliefnet, you learn logical fallacies REAL quick, LOL). I believe guys like him are well aware of the doctrines associated with Christianity ... he just chooses to pat himself on the back first.

By labeling them mindless or brainwashed is being intolerable. Too often "Christians" or religious people are labeled as blind sheep or being "brainwashed", as if they aren't intelligent enough to make a decision on their own.

My suggestion is to read more about cult-mentalities.

Unfortunately, these evolved computational programs can be hijacked. Addictive drugs, for example, rewire the brain's dopamine system--normally used to reward choices that are good for the organism, such as obtaining food, family and friends--to reward choosing the next high instead. Ideas do something similar, in that they take over the role of reward signals that feed into the dopamine neurons. This effect includes bad ideas, such as the Heaven's Gate cult members who chose suicide to join the mother ship they believed was awaiting them near Comet Hale-Bopp. The brains of suicide bombers have been similarly commandeered by bad ideas from their religions or politics.

Why People Believe in Conspiracies
It's not entirely an insult. There really are issues with people who think in certain ways. I just wanted to bring some actual science into such inflammatory remarks.

It’s the wide leaps of faith of the possessed snake of Genesis and the virgin birth of the New Testament that I don't believe.

I believe it's important to differentiate the "literalists" from merely theological conservatives. The problem with self-avowed "literalists" is that they set themselves up to look like hypocrites, as they believe in some irrelevant rules and yet rules that do affect them (say, one thing is an abomination and yet they don't agree with shrimp being one too [sorry Pepe, LOL]) they conveniently ignore or outright deny. You can't imagine how many literalists I talk to who proclaim doctrines that are found nowhere in the book they claim to take so literally. It gets frustrating. Conservative ideology, meanwhile, can seek to be as close as possible to see the sacred scripture on hand as extremely important and largely fact-based, but aren't so hung up on literalness to suggest that obvious parables and poems are also meant to be taken literally.

Keith Olberman and his hatred of the right or Republicans is almost unlistenable but that is never the example cited.

I used to watch him. However, him and Rachel Maddow clearly just want to rant, like the people they rant against. So I stopped.

He is an extremist, but there is a tendency to group all Christians in the same group.

But that's just it. It's acknowledged he's an extremist. Those that see him spread his message of stupidity fear that mainstreamers could be affected by him as well. I don't think it's a completely irrational fear. The media doesn't help by choosing "leaders" for certain groups who really aren't our "leaders" but they bring in the ratings. Let's go dump on TV for giggles, shall we?

 

[MuppetsRule]

Firstly, I was referring to and ONLY to the fanatical far right who listen to false prophets and practice hate and intolerance... and I wasn't even complaining about them, so much as their leaders. There's a difference between being a lamb of God and the puppet of someone trying to undermine a nation's political system. Christianity and Conservativism has been all but married when Jerry Falwel (sp) created the phoney baloney "Moral Majority" in the 70's to compete with the Hippies who wanted out of Vietnam (well, most of the Hippies just jumped in for the style)... I won't go into that.\

And again, as a Christian, that sort of thing makes me a LOT more offended than anything else. Christianity is about charity and peace and all that. So far any of these televangelist types (the ones caught routinely in trysts or embezzling money) has yet to do something that good. Heck, even the Pope, at least spoke out against Iraq.

Maybe I'm just not explaining myself clearly here because I feel that we are much closer in agreement than thought. I agree wholeheartedly with your statement about the meaning of Christianity and how many organized religions have gotten away from that. And I also agree with you that some Christians believe that if they go to church on Sunday and put their money in the offering plate that their duty as a Christian is done. But I get offended when somebody labels the followers of Christianity or any other religion as being "brainwashed" or "controlled" as referred to several times in this thread and other threads about religion. It's very possible that they have thoughtfully studied the teachings of Christianity and have chosen to accept them, as others have chosen to reject them. Who are we to judge and label them "brainwashed"? Or as to who is right or wrong? And yet when somebody refers to a religious person as being brainwashed or controlled it is just accepted, as if a religious person is incapable of having an independent thought. Now you or I may not agree with that person's conclusions or beliefs, but to label them as brainwashed is not showing tolerance.

Secondly, there's a difference between the far left and the far right. People listen to the far right, and they're views are taken seriously. Look at the blatant hypocrisy in the news media, and how they're covering the Tea Bag protesters a lot more vividly and extensively than ANY of the Anti-War demonstrations. Air America is no more, but Fox's ratings and book sales have never been higher. Personally, I don't care for the extremes of both sides, but the left is treated like the harmless bunch of loonies that needn't be dignified with a response, but the far right actually has MUSCLE...

Once again I agree that extremism on either side is what's so harmful to this country. And I believe the right or conservative movement is in the majority. But I also don't believe that the majority of people are extreme in their believes which is not reflected in the viewpoints of the news opinion shows which only show the extreme viewpoints on one-side or the other. That's what gets ratings. Taking a middle-of-the-road stance is not going to get ratings, and therefore advertising dollars.

I do disagree with your viewpoint about which side is being taken seriously. I think an argument can be made both ways. The right may look at the left as a bunch of loonies that needn't be taken seriously, but the left views the right as a bunch of loonies as well. And Fox may be hypocritical in it's slant of the news but so are other channels. It's just that Fox gets highlighted because they bill themselves as fair and balanced. And I know Fox News likes to tout their popularity in terms of ratings as if that's some sort of mandate on their viewpoints but what's ignored is the fact that they are the only right-leaning television news source out there so of course their ratings are going to be higher. A left-leaning person can go to several different channels to get a left view point. The number of shows of left viewpoint versus right may be the same it's just that the right-leaning shows are concentrated on one channel whereas the left viewpoints are scattered.

Now having said that, I offended Frogboy earlier in this thread by wrongfully using some of his posts to make a point. It was not intended as an attack on him or his viewpoint. I am sorry if it came across that way. It was simply an attempt (albeit clumsily) to make a point in general about the discussion in this thread. Likewise, Dr. Tooth, just because I've quoted you, please do not view my points as an attack on you. I am simply trying to further this discussion.

 

[Drtooth]

But I get offended when somebody labels the followers of Christianity or any other religion as being "brainwashed" or "controlled" as referred to several times in this thread and other threads about religion.

I think I know what the problem is... I didn't explain why I use the term exactly.

The "Brainwashing" is a nice little term that side coined to make it sound like they're in the right. E.i. saying that promoting tolerance is "Brainwashing" kids, forcing tolerance down people's throats...etc. etc. In those terms, someone's just trying to make a point. There's no question we've seen a lot of Falwell/Robertson types in history, and it still sadly goes on today. I just find it highly disgusting since the leaders who claim to be moral are quite a deal more immoral than anyone else. I consent to your point, as Brainwashing and control ARE pretty harsh words.

The problem is, these kinds of groups (with the responsibility going to the leaders) ARE the most vocal, and their leaders are likely to say nasty things, and the only responsibility I think is in any community (religious or not) is to know what these people are really saying, what their true stance is, and what they, as followers, stand to benefit from listening to them and letting them have their say in things. And I think that's where everything falls flat. Religiously, Politically, and whatever.

 

[MuppetsRule]

I think I know what the problem is... I didn't explain why I use the term exactly.

The "Brainwashing" is a nice little term that side coined to make it sound like they're in the right. E.i. saying that promoting tolerance is "Brainwashing" kids, forcing tolerance down people's throats...etc. etc. In those terms, someone's just trying to make a point. There's no question we've seen a lot of Falwell/Robertson types in history, and it still sadly goes on today. I just find it highly disgusting since the leaders who claim to be moral are quite a deal more immoral than anyone else. I consent to your point, as Brainwashing and control ARE pretty harsh words.

The problem is, these kinds of groups (with the responsibility going to the leaders) ARE the most vocal, and their leaders are likely to say nasty things, and the only responsibility I think is in any community (religious or not) is to know what these people are really saying, what their true stance is, and what they, as followers, stand to benefit from listening to them and letting them have their say in things. And I think that's where everything falls flat. Religiously, Politically, and whatever.

I may be completely wrong here because I really don't know what sort of ratings or number of followers that Pat Robertson has but I don't believe that the Pat Robertson's or Jerry Falwell's represent the viewpoints of the majority of religious people. It may appear so because they may be the most vocal or the most public but I think that most religious people (or at least those that I know) view the televangelists with a great deal of suspicion. Unfortunately, they are the public face of religion and are seen as representative of religion's viewpoints. They actually do more harm than good.

 

[frogboy4]

copesthetic

I think we're all on the same page now even though we all have different beliefs in varying shades. I'm not upset at anyone here and hope that nobody here's upset with me.

Fallwell, Roberson, Olbermann and Maddow have been referenced on this thread and I have to agree that all of them have fallen victim to megalomania just like so many others in the high-profile religious and political spectrums. They all start with a pretty good idea and then are surrounded by yes-men and they lose perspective. It's hard not to fall into that sort of trap. Few have the character.

On another note, a couple weeks ago I got into a little trouble at my job managing the toy store. People give us flyers all the time to post in our window and to stack by the register. Well, one very attractive fellow requested we stock his flyers. They could have had anything on them and I wouldn't have noticed! Anyway, the postcards were promoting a kids' music band and had colorful animals all over it. Once the guy left I noticed a Star of David on the monkey's drum set, but I still put one of them in the window. We've promoted Buddhist art exhibits so this seemed harmless enough. My boss wasn't happy about it. We kept them up, but we wouldn't have stocked them if it had been his call. I still don't see what the big deal was...and did I mention the guy was very cute.

 

[ISNorden]

Double standards? Well...I've seen both preaching and religion-bashing in threads where they aren't appropriate, and try my hardest to avoid either extreme. Yes, I belong to a non-Christian religion; but I don't go out of my way to complain when some of you include Bible verses in your signatures. And yes, I object to fundamentalist behavior in any faith (including my own!); but I bring up those objections only when they relate to the Muppets and associated material. If members at both ends of the spectrum made a better effort to get along, fewer people would accuse the forum of having double standards in the first place.