Before evangelical Christians worked their way into government through Republicans who saw them as lucrative allies; and before Republicans made common cause with the Catholic church over matters of sex and sexuality; it was taboo to talk about religious beliefs in public. Those were the days. People stayed home and prayed in their closets where no one could see, as the bible commands, unlike the hypocrites who make a show of their piety on every street corner. But these days, pious believers join the hypocrites and constantly put their antisocial convictions on display, trying to dictate public policy. (It's always the antisocial ones who mouth off, thinking they are more virtuous than thou for it.)
When people kept their beliefs to themselves it was a happier, live and let live, time. Today, I consider conservative religions our most villainous enemies of democracy. Let there be no more respectful silence or unearned respect for another person's beliefs once they brandish them as weapons. They will be in for a fight.
It’s interesting to me that the only religions identified here are Christianity and Judaism. The sight of a casually-dressed man accompanied by his wife in a burqa upsets me more than any cross or kippah can do …
I named Christianity, but I also condemned "conservative religions," meaning to include all outspoken and bossy religions. They have such relatively small presence and influence here I didn't bother to name them.
Here in Boston, I saw a man with a woman in a burqa only once. My blood ran cold. It left me with a feeling of sadness. But my mouthy Christian brother-in-law always leaves me angry.
Yeah. My generation was taught that sex, politics, and religion were not topics for polite company. Unfortunately, the company is no longer polite. It's hostile.
I think I’m one of the least racist people you will meet, but I still replied “Yes” to the question. I don’t know if there is anyone is isn’t at least a little bit racist.
I know I'm far from one of the least racist but I think I could safely say that racism has rarely (I'd like to say never but I'm not delusional) played a role in a decision that would affect another person, like hiring. My better angels help me there but I know I have deep-seated biases that affect my judgment of people. I'm a primate so it's unavoidable.
Neither, I think. The question refers to the "openly" religious. That means someone who talks about his or her religious beliefs or wears items, such as a yarmulke or a cross, to show his or her religion. Whether he or she is sincere and whether he or she attends services or engages in rituals is irrelevant.
OK, thanks. I was thinking about the difference between a person who talks openly about helping the poor and loving their neighbour because it pleases their deity, as compared to the stuff that Joni Ernst spews.
Less now than in the 1970s and '80s, but I've been known to wear an ankh necklace. Clearly that choice inspired my mother, who defiantly had an ankh symbol carved on her gravestone. (I still wonder what cemetery visitors think when they see that!) Ankh is a religious symbol that predates even the cross, but since neither Mom nor I ever has been a follower of Osiris or Isis, does openly using that symbol count?
Well, considering what it symbolizes, it marks/marked you and your mother as believers in life, both spiritual and physical; the continuity of existence. So, not really a religious symbol per se in the modern day --- more a talisman --- although some Christian tradition religions have incorporated it with the cross.
I am not in any way homophobic, meaning fearful of homosexuals, but I can’t pretend that I don’t cling to some assumptions about them. In my early 20s my gang and I made each other laugh with exaggerations of supposedly gay modes of speech and gesture - at a time when we were respectfully working with gay colleagues. Thankfully I am well past that sort of behavior, and yet I’m still surprised to find out that certain people are gay when they don’t (in my mind) present that way.
I answered yes to that question, but I’m much like you. I have tried to stop using a certain word since I learned how much it stings gay friends, although it still comes out from time to time, but not meant as a gay slur. And many people would be surprised that my 6’5”, Harley riding pal with the ZZ Top-like beard is married to a man.
I mentioned this before, but since we're formally on the subject of bias (and deathless prose and all that...), being neither gay nor Black, it may well be presumptuous of me to say that hearing the ‘n-word,’ even uttered by Black folk and ‘fag’ or ‘queer’ tossed around by gays (though I know the use of ‘queer’ is now widely accepted in the LGBTQ+ community) sets my teeth on edge. I find it hard to accept the theory that continuously using what is a pejorative or slur somehow lessens the ‘power’ it has over us. And I have yet to be convinced as well, that use of these terms by those at whom these terms, as blatant slurs, are usually directed by others, is somehow ‘reclaiming’ them from this bigotry.
While this may be liberating for some, I can’t help but feel they are still hurtful to many others and using them may also unwittingly give license to those outside of these communities to do likewise. That bothers me — although, of course, as I said, not being part of either community, it’s not for me to say what their members choose to call themselves or each other. I just have a problem with any negative characterization, be it racial, ethnic or related to sexual/gender orientation, whatever the intent. Words have consequences however smugly wrapped in legal protection. Overly sensitive? Generational? Perhaps.
As I've said before, I respect true believers, even those openly displaying those beliefs through symbols or clothing. That is, except perhaps after services on the weekends, when apparently cloaked in virtuousness, Right of Way at all times is assumed to be divinely granted. My beef is with the conditionally or conveniently religious, with proselytizing and of course, the theocrats. Religion is a prominent part of the patchwork quilt of the American experience, but it's only one of the many patches.
I'm embarrassed how easily I slip into stereotypical reactions despite my progressive upbringing and deeply held beliefs.
I do like the expletive "scumbag", more often than not preceded by effn. I use it to offend my direct targets who I try to choose without regard to race, gender, sexual persuasions, national origins, personal beliefs, political identifications, eieio.
Maybe 25 years would be more inclusive and I think it depends on the age of the younger person and also which gender was older/younger. An 18 year old dating a 35 year old, 17 year difference, is a bigger problem I think than a 25 year old dating a 50 year old 25 year difference. 30 year differences I would think are uncommon, present company notwithstanding.
I'm jealous of people with a lot of children if they wanted them. I was only able to have and afford 2. I'm sexist against men because so many of them act so badly.
If you don't have a policy making position in a nation or powerful corporation, the single thing you can do that most affects everyone else in the world is to have a baby, and the more money you have relative to the rest of the world, the more it affects everyone. And white UMC Americans are at the top of that hierarchy. No decision to have a baby affects only the family involved. And that's why we shouldn't say it's ok for Elon to have 14 kids and counting. The world can't afford it.
Despite your self-described general enfeeblement (but calculated in Weingartens, a measure reserved for the most able, at least mentally), I'd say pound-for-pound, while Rachel probably couldn't match you in absolute strength when it comes to punishing body blows, she would be more able to nimbly bob and weave to avoid them and likely have the endurance to keep punching. Then, typically having better lower body strength because of anatomy, she could also get in some decent roundhouse kicks. Finally, she is undoubtedly faster than you so while you might be able to run, you'd have a hard time losing her. I'd say your best bet is to negotiate a blanket truce well in advance.
Before evangelical Christians worked their way into government through Republicans who saw them as lucrative allies; and before Republicans made common cause with the Catholic church over matters of sex and sexuality; it was taboo to talk about religious beliefs in public. Those were the days. People stayed home and prayed in their closets where no one could see, as the bible commands, unlike the hypocrites who make a show of their piety on every street corner. But these days, pious believers join the hypocrites and constantly put their antisocial convictions on display, trying to dictate public policy. (It's always the antisocial ones who mouth off, thinking they are more virtuous than thou for it.)
When people kept their beliefs to themselves it was a happier, live and let live, time. Today, I consider conservative religions our most villainous enemies of democracy. Let there be no more respectful silence or unearned respect for another person's beliefs once they brandish them as weapons. They will be in for a fight.
It’s interesting to me that the only religions identified here are Christianity and Judaism. The sight of a casually-dressed man accompanied by his wife in a burqa upsets me more than any cross or kippah can do …
I named Christianity, but I also condemned "conservative religions," meaning to include all outspoken and bossy religions. They have such relatively small presence and influence here I didn't bother to name them.
Here in Boston, I saw a man with a woman in a burqa only once. My blood ran cold. It left me with a feeling of sadness. But my mouthy Christian brother-in-law always leaves me angry.
I missed the part about naming the religion. Was that a different post?
I'm sorry, I thought the comments were referring to the survey, not the above comment. Sorry for the confusion!
The opening phrase "Before evangelical Christians..." names the particular group to which he refers, I think...
First line, "evangelical Christians." Second paragraph, "conservative religions."
It's like the Story of O
Yeah. My generation was taught that sex, politics, and religion were not topics for polite company. Unfortunately, the company is no longer polite. It's hostile.
If Rachel ever does kick your ass, can you please post video of it? There are probably folks who would like to watch.
Post it and charge pay-per-view rates.
Understand it will be the eventual end of this talky thing that we dig, and the beginning of very profitable sideline. <sad emoji>
I have to admit to being a little racist. White people continually disappoint me. I’m white.
It's how our brains are wired. It's what we do about it that matters, just like all the many other animal impulses- sex, gluttony, violence.
Really meant to reply to Sean Clinchy from before.
I think I’m one of the least racist people you will meet, but I still replied “Yes” to the question. I don’t know if there is anyone is isn’t at least a little bit racist.
I know I'm far from one of the least racist but I think I could safely say that racism has rarely (I'd like to say never but I'm not delusional) played a role in a decision that would affect another person, like hiring. My better angels help me there but I know I have deep-seated biases that affect my judgment of people. I'm a primate so it's unavoidable.
I think that applies to all of the questions. A lot of folks are lying to themselves!
Same
I find it hilarious that there are between 13-70% of your readers who truly believe they don't harbor biases.
Is the question about _actually_ or _performatively_ religious?
Neither, I think. The question refers to the "openly" religious. That means someone who talks about his or her religious beliefs or wears items, such as a yarmulke or a cross, to show his or her religion. Whether he or she is sincere and whether he or she attends services or engages in rituals is irrelevant.
That is indeed what I meant.
OK, thanks. I was thinking about the difference between a person who talks openly about helping the poor and loving their neighbour because it pleases their deity, as compared to the stuff that Joni Ernst spews.
Joni Ernst is a CINO. Christian in name only. And I am religious.
Less now than in the 1970s and '80s, but I've been known to wear an ankh necklace. Clearly that choice inspired my mother, who defiantly had an ankh symbol carved on her gravestone. (I still wonder what cemetery visitors think when they see that!) Ankh is a religious symbol that predates even the cross, but since neither Mom nor I ever has been a follower of Osiris or Isis, does openly using that symbol count?
Well, considering what it symbolizes, it marks/marked you and your mother as believers in life, both spiritual and physical; the continuity of existence. So, not really a religious symbol per se in the modern day --- more a talisman --- although some Christian tradition religions have incorporated it with the cross.
I answered "yes" on the racist question because, if we are truly honest with ourselves, we all are at least a little bit racist.
I also answered "yes" to the sexist statement, mainly because to me, women being equal to men is a step backwards for women.
I am not in any way homophobic, meaning fearful of homosexuals, but I can’t pretend that I don’t cling to some assumptions about them. In my early 20s my gang and I made each other laugh with exaggerations of supposedly gay modes of speech and gesture - at a time when we were respectfully working with gay colleagues. Thankfully I am well past that sort of behavior, and yet I’m still surprised to find out that certain people are gay when they don’t (in my mind) present that way.
I answered yes to that question, but I’m much like you. I have tried to stop using a certain word since I learned how much it stings gay friends, although it still comes out from time to time, but not meant as a gay slur. And many people would be surprised that my 6’5”, Harley riding pal with the ZZ Top-like beard is married to a man.
Now I'll have "eh-how-how-how-how" running in my mind's ear all day.
buncha liars in those polls.
I mentioned this before, but since we're formally on the subject of bias (and deathless prose and all that...), being neither gay nor Black, it may well be presumptuous of me to say that hearing the ‘n-word,’ even uttered by Black folk and ‘fag’ or ‘queer’ tossed around by gays (though I know the use of ‘queer’ is now widely accepted in the LGBTQ+ community) sets my teeth on edge. I find it hard to accept the theory that continuously using what is a pejorative or slur somehow lessens the ‘power’ it has over us. And I have yet to be convinced as well, that use of these terms by those at whom these terms, as blatant slurs, are usually directed by others, is somehow ‘reclaiming’ them from this bigotry.
While this may be liberating for some, I can’t help but feel they are still hurtful to many others and using them may also unwittingly give license to those outside of these communities to do likewise. That bothers me — although, of course, as I said, not being part of either community, it’s not for me to say what their members choose to call themselves or each other. I just have a problem with any negative characterization, be it racial, ethnic or related to sexual/gender orientation, whatever the intent. Words have consequences however smugly wrapped in legal protection. Overly sensitive? Generational? Perhaps.
While cycling near Pride events yesterday, I saw more than a few T-shirts with “FAG” in big letters on the front.
They can own the word as black people can own the N word. White, straight people should not use either term.
As I've said before, I respect true believers, even those openly displaying those beliefs through symbols or clothing. That is, except perhaps after services on the weekends, when apparently cloaked in virtuousness, Right of Way at all times is assumed to be divinely granted. My beef is with the conditionally or conveniently religious, with proselytizing and of course, the theocrats. Religion is a prominent part of the patchwork quilt of the American experience, but it's only one of the many patches.
I'm embarrassed how easily I slip into stereotypical reactions despite my progressive upbringing and deeply held beliefs.
I do like the expletive "scumbag", more often than not preceded by effn. I use it to offend my direct targets who I try to choose without regard to race, gender, sexual persuasions, national origins, personal beliefs, political identifications, eieio.
Kumbaya, y'all
There is an Avenue Q song for every situation.
https://youtu.be/RXnM1uHhsOI?si=sApCQwNjk01LHsUO
Well, you knocked the ZZ Top "La Grange" tune out of my head. Now "The Internet is for Porn" is on repeat in my mind's ear.
I think another interesting question to ask would be "Are you even a little bit prejudiced against couples who are 30+ years apart"?
Maybe 25 years would be more inclusive and I think it depends on the age of the younger person and also which gender was older/younger. An 18 year old dating a 35 year old, 17 year difference, is a bigger problem I think than a 25 year old dating a 50 year old 25 year difference. 30 year differences I would think are uncommon, present company notwithstanding.
I'm jealous of people with a lot of children if they wanted them. I was only able to have and afford 2. I'm sexist against men because so many of them act so badly.
As long as parents can support their children, I don't care if they have a volleyball team.
If you don't have a policy making position in a nation or powerful corporation, the single thing you can do that most affects everyone else in the world is to have a baby, and the more money you have relative to the rest of the world, the more it affects everyone. And white UMC Americans are at the top of that hierarchy. No decision to have a baby affects only the family involved. And that's why we shouldn't say it's ok for Elon to have 14 kids and counting. The world can't afford it.
Despite your self-described general enfeeblement (but calculated in Weingartens, a measure reserved for the most able, at least mentally), I'd say pound-for-pound, while Rachel probably couldn't match you in absolute strength when it comes to punishing body blows, she would be more able to nimbly bob and weave to avoid them and likely have the endurance to keep punching. Then, typically having better lower body strength because of anatomy, she could also get in some decent roundhouse kicks. Finally, she is undoubtedly faster than you so while you might be able to run, you'd have a hard time losing her. I'd say your best bet is to negotiate a blanket truce well in advance.