More "Christian" Idiocy

Never mind the fact that they assigned an alternative book for the idiot kid to read. The hick couldn't leave well enough alone. He had to really jack with everyone.

 

MM, I understand your points, but answer this because it all boils down to this:

He didn't want his daughter reading the book, therefore she was offered an alternative.
That shuold have been it. End of story. Plain and simple.

The man has his convictions and his wish was imposed.
But like so many "activists" it's not enough that his daughter not read it. Now he knows what's best for everyone else, too. Suddenly the mere presence of literature like that is offensive. Hell, lots of things are offensive to me. If I had my way, anyone who invites me to their church, unsolicited, should be slapped vigorously. But instead, I say no thanks and move on. Do I really need to pass a law making it illegal for people to invite me? Isn't it easier, and just as effective, to say no thanks and move on?

Is this dad going to hell for letting his daughter read the book? Maybe. Is he going to hell for NOT banning it completely? Doubtful.

And that's what it boils down to MM.

 

I have two theories (not being him or Him, that's all I can provide):

1. He believes the offense to God and the swears are detremental to kids and he wants to protect them,

2. He doesn't really care about anyone other than God and what he thinks He thinks.

Now that's the best-case, devil's advocate (heh) reading. Of course, it could be he wanted to supress the Ray Bradbury-loving majority for selfish or nefarious reasons. But I honestly don't think the guy's thinking "how DARE other people get to choose for themselves, I'll put a stop to that! MUAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!" *twiddles handlebar mustache and adjusts evil top hat*

It's sort of like how pro-abortion rights people think that the reason anti-abortion people take their position is to opress women. I used to be part of the anti-abortion movement in my more radical high school days. I never really thought about it in those terms. I thought the fetus within a woman's body had a right to not have its existence ended. I didn't want to keep women barefoot and pregnant raging foot fetish notwithstanding. Oddly enough, I wasn't even a Christian back then, so that had nothing to do with it. When I became a Christian, I also strayed AWAY from the anti-abortion groups because I thought they had lost their focus, drawing on religious and anti-homosexuality support that muddled their issue and marginalized them to the moderates they need to attract so they can do more than just preach to the converted.

Bottom line: I don't believe the dad in Texas is right, but I also don't believe he took a wrong position for the wrong reasons.

 

I would choose not to read it. But it would be of the utmost amount of hubris to demand that nobody else be allowed to read it, let alone those that do not share my love.

No question about it. There is no debate on the subject of reaction.

However, I think you will agree that the thinking behind both are the same. They are both extreme reactions to the very notion of their religious symbol being portrayed somewhere at some point in a way they don't like.

(I do believe that much of the Muslim reaction was not based on the actual cartoon, but what they were informed in regards to the cartoon. It isn't an excuse, just what happened.)

 

A fair point on the Muslim reaction thing. And the analogy holds as well: both are overexaggerations, but to a degree understandable reasons to have them. I actually admire the Muslims for their reverential way they treat their prophet -- would that more Christians were actually in awe of Jesus and expressed their faith more deeply respectfully than merely sporting a popular culture ripoff t-shirt.

 

The comment about firemen shows this guy is a dope. The attitude of the main character, who is a fireman, is the whole point of the book.

Every journalist and writer should read Farenheit 451, which is a Top 10 book of all books written in teh 20th century.

 

And here's where you lose me ...

I don't believe that religion makes it in any way "understandable" to have an intolerant reaction toward anyone else, or the rest of the world.

I will firmly stand up for anyone's right to be able to peacefully believe whatever they want to believe. But when you start imposing your beliefs on anyone else -- and that is what this "idiot dad" is doing, make no mistake about it -- that's when I have a problem.

You've got to be able to get along with people who don't share your beliefs -- and too many Christians, too many Muslims, too many Jews, too many self-admitted religious apologists, seem to choose church over state when it comes down to having to make a real choice on the separation. They hold their own religious beliefs higher than they hold anyone else's, and higher than they hold the freedom that allows them to practice those religious beliefs without interference.

In private, you can believe whatever you want. That's why you have that freedom.

But in public, you've got to be able to get along with other people's beliefs. And too many people like to overlook that fact, in the name of religion. That's where I have a problem.

 

I don't mean that the fundamentalists that dot the Christian and Muslim rosters have good cause to overreact; I think they're both wrong. I do, however, understand WHY they would feel offended (deep reverence to Jesus/Muhammed). And that's a good thing, even if the way they express it fails at life.

 

Respect MMs diligence and dedication, but I find it difficult to get past the basics:

This is a secular world. Children need to know how to cope with that world . . . its issues . . .
challenges . . . and realities.

There's a time and place to throw tough realities at kids. Kids should be allowed to be kids,
but there's a time to put away children's things, and prepare yourself to earn your own
way in what's now a most-competitive world society.

To do this, you need to teach kids how to think critically, and how to solve vital problems,
within golden-rule parameters.

This isn't accomplished by sheltering kids from modern realities.

Parents need to be attentive . . . teaching kids right from wrong . . . and ready to
answer questions directly, and truthfully.

But to proceed along a less-challenging path isn't giving your usual IQ 100 kid a fair shot
to stay afloat in an increasily-tough world existence.

Denying broad world-science knowledge and broadly-acknowledged classic literature
is not the way to go.

 

Ben_Hecht made the point better than I would have, but:

If people can't get along in a secular world because of their religious beliefs, or if they're easily offended by tenets of the secular world because of their religious beliefs, then maybe it's the religious beliefs that need re-evaluating, not necessarily the secular world.

But rarely do people want to look at it that way ...

 

That might be true if extreme beliefs were the order of the day for all or even most of religion's believers. But most Muslims don't bomb things and most Christians don't protest at gay people's funerals.

It's not really a secular world (and I agree with most of Ben's post re: teaching children the realities of life, though I'm sure he doesn't mean that to say that there should be no limits whasoever -- like a kindergarten book wouldn't have pictures of sulfuric burn victims). There's no majority religion, but there's enough people who believe in a higher power that calling it a secular world is a bit misleading. Plus there's many countries out there with state religions.

And there's also a difference between being offended because of religion (my tax money shouldn't go towards public showing of pictures depicting Christ in a bottle of urine!) and religion making someone realize they should be offended (not helping someone in need is wrong).

 

About twice a year, you hear about a religious group wanting to ban a book.

On your side of things, you have a college restricting "hate" speech, which can be as innocous as someone writing an editorial in the school saying they don't like feminists. You might even find groups who don't like such editorials going around and snatching bundles of the school paper and tossing them in dumpsters.

Either situation is abhorrent. But while I'm 2-for-2 in decrying both situations, I'm sure you're 1-for-2.