Hello!
The comments on this profile are unclaimed and thus are unverified.
Do they belong to you? Claim these comments.
Jean
Is this you? Claim Profile »
1 year ago
in Faith Under Fire on odd time signatures
Yes, I read what she had to say. She said that she's tired of being lumped together with crazies like Pat Buchanan and James Dobson who "do not represent us, do not speak for us, and in our view, have allowed their message to be jaded and twisted by the power and money they have garnered through the exploitation of the political process and their extreme views." She said she is not a "foaming-at-the-mouth lunatic".
The problem is, in order to distance yourself from those crazies, there's one obligation you have to follow: *don't act like them*.
Following 9/11, Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell got on national TV and blamed the attack on the gays and the liberals. They took advantage of a horrible tragedy to attack their usual foes.
And what did Karoli do in her post? She used a tragedy to attack her foes. I have no idea if they're her usual foes or foes de jour, but her intent was clear: she doesn't like those anti-faith people shoving their anti-faith down her throat and this incident was a wonderful opportunity to wag a finger at them and say what horrible people they are and to blame them for it.
Oh, but there's just one problem. Did you hear the news?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071210/ap_on_re_us...
The gunman was one of their own. A disgruntled former member. Not an atheist, not someone filled with "anti-faith rage", not someone following through on the trendy throat-shoving "conversation" on faith. He was simply a fellow Christian with mental issues.
Karoli, you complain about my mocking tone, but why do you think that your rush to capitalize on tragedy deserves more than mockery? Note that I wasn't mocking people of faith, I was mocking you.
"faith is an entirely different matter than religion"
Religion is merely when someone sits down and writes out what their faith is. Faith without religion is just incoherent mumbling. If you can explain your faith coherently, then you are have, and are engaged in, religion.
The problem is, in order to distance yourself from those crazies, there's one obligation you have to follow: *don't act like them*.
Following 9/11, Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell got on national TV and blamed the attack on the gays and the liberals. They took advantage of a horrible tragedy to attack their usual foes.
And what did Karoli do in her post? She used a tragedy to attack her foes. I have no idea if they're her usual foes or foes de jour, but her intent was clear: she doesn't like those anti-faith people shoving their anti-faith down her throat and this incident was a wonderful opportunity to wag a finger at them and say what horrible people they are and to blame them for it.
Oh, but there's just one problem. Did you hear the news?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071210/ap_on_re_us...
The gunman was one of their own. A disgruntled former member. Not an atheist, not someone filled with "anti-faith rage", not someone following through on the trendy throat-shoving "conversation" on faith. He was simply a fellow Christian with mental issues.
Karoli, you complain about my mocking tone, but why do you think that your rush to capitalize on tragedy deserves more than mockery? Note that I wasn't mocking people of faith, I was mocking you.
"faith is an entirely different matter than religion"
Religion is merely when someone sits down and writes out what their faith is. Faith without religion is just incoherent mumbling. If you can explain your faith coherently, then you are have, and are engaged in, religion.
1 reply
1 year ago
in Faith Under Fire on odd time signatures
I'm sorry, but who exactly is shoving their lack of faith down your throat, and what exactly is the form of this shoving? This is a common claim by the religious, that atheists are somehow forcing themselves on others, but what exactly are the atheists doing? Writing books? Stating their position on blogs? This is shoving?
Wake me when "There Is No God" is on all our currency and presidential candidates make speeches that there can be no freedom without atheism.
And seriously, what is this:
"I could easily have been one of the churchgoers in the crosshairs this morning. Isn’t there a better way to have a conversation about this?"
Melodramatic much? You just naturally assume that the shooter did what he did because he was anti-religious? Oh those atheists, why must they converse with guns? The "anti-faith rage" claims more lives!
Wake me when "There Is No God" is on all our currency and presidential candidates make speeches that there can be no freedom without atheism.
And seriously, what is this:
"I could easily have been one of the churchgoers in the crosshairs this morning. Isn’t there a better way to have a conversation about this?"
Melodramatic much? You just naturally assume that the shooter did what he did because he was anti-religious? Oh those atheists, why must they converse with guns? The "anti-faith rage" claims more lives!
1 reply
Karoli
Maybe melodramatic -- I'm willing to own that. But on the other hand, I was in church yesterday, just not that church. And I have assisted young people to attend training at the YWAM center that was under attack yesterday, so I found that shooting particularly tragic.
As to your comments about currency and candidates, I agree with you. It is the politicization of religion that has increased the repugnance factor with everyone, including me. I cringe when these guys start speechifying about their righteousness and right to own an office because they are of one faith or another.
As to the shoving, I view the mocking tone that you came at me with as an example of that. I can understand anger at religions, but why mock people with faith? That's the distinction I'm drawing -- faith is an entirely different matter than religion.
As to your comments about currency and candidates, I agree with you. It is the politicization of religion that has increased the repugnance factor with everyone, including me. I cringe when these guys start speechifying about their righteousness and right to own an office because they are of one faith or another.
As to the shoving, I view the mocking tone that you came at me with as an example of that. I can understand anger at religions, but why mock people with faith? That's the distinction I'm drawing -- faith is an entirely different matter than religion.
"Not an atheist, not someone filled with "anti-faith rage", not someone following through on the trendy throat-shoving "conversation" on faith. He was simply a fellow Christian with mental issues."
According to news reports, he was filled with 'anti-Christian' rage: http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/12/11/shooter.youth/...
"I have no idea if they're her usual foes or foes de jour, but her intent was clear: she doesn't like those anti-faith people shoving their anti-faith down her throat and this incident was a wonderful opportunity to wag a finger at them and say what horrible people they are and to blame them for it."
Perhaps you believe you saw my intent clearly, but if you haven't read any of my other blog posts, how could you possibly know my intent? This was the second post in over 1,000 in the span of 2 1/2 years that I've written about Christianity. It is an uncommon topic on my blog. My response was simply that: a response to my perception that there's a lot of anti-Christian sentiment that should actually be recharacterized as anti-religion sentiment.
"Religion is merely when someone sits down and writes out what their faith is."
Disagree with you completely here. Religion is an outward manifestation of faith. It has nothing to do with writing it; it has to do with living it. And when it's corrupt, it has to do with meaningless traditions and rules and don'ts, can'ts and judgments pronounced from on high.