|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Dead Horses: Am I an extremist now?
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Originally posted by le vie en rouge:
quote:
I think this is relevant to the original question. Are these kids extremists? No, they are normal, moderate Muslims. Branding them extremists strikes me as highly counterproductive because it leaves you with nothing to say about real extremism, which is a genuine danger to young Muslims.
X is wrong/right and you cannot do otherwise is extreme.
I think X is right/wrong is not inherently extreme.
Russ had a good point earlier: extreme views can be seperate from extreme actions.
Your views are extreme is different to you are an extremist.
Not saying either applies to the students in your example, just to be clear.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Gay marriage is wrong and should not be allowed. Extreme one side.
Churches should be forced to marry gay people. Extreme other side.
Equal marriage under state law is what should be, let the churches do what they will. Not extreme.
And that proves my point.
Mind illustrating how?
Certainly
You framed the issue as being about gay marriage and defined all those opposed to gay marriage as extremists. Of the 195 countries in the world, only 19 of them allow same sex marriage. With the exception of South Africa and Israel, both outliers for historical and demographic reasons, no nation in Africa or Asia allows same sex marriage. Nearly every nation that allows same sex marriage is either in Europe or has a majority of people of European descent. In Brazil, Argentina, and Mexico, support for same sex marriage hovers around 50/50. In other words, you've framed the question in a way that makes extremists of billions of people of different races and creeds extremists while declaring as mainstream a view that is predominantly held by relatively affluent center left white people.
The real issue is same sex relationships. Opposition to same sex marriage is hardly a monolithic position. Nor is support for same sex marriage. Here, let me attempt to plot some of those positions in descending order starting with opposition.
Same Sex Marriage Not Allowed
...And same sex couples are punished for having sex:
-Capital Crime
-Imprisonment
-A fine
-Technically illegal but never prosecuted
...But same sex couples can legally have sex (still wrong)
-they are just ostracized instead
-tolerated so long as they aren't public
-same sex couples technically stay in the closet but everybody tolerates them being a couple so long as they appear to be only friends in public.
-same sex couples can be open but are still sinners
-my religion opposes it but who am I to judge?
Legal recognition for same sex peer bonds but not marriage:
-Same sex peer bonds are sinful but same sex couples should have some legal protection
-Same as the above but supports same sex unions
-Whatever...just don't call it marriage
-Why should gay people want to get married?
Same Sex Marriage Allowed
-Against my religion but won't oppose it
-I'm for it but let's vote on it
-Gay marriage is a human right
-Publicly shame those who oppose same sex marriage
-In addition to publicly shaming, businesses cannot legally refuse the businesses of same sex couples wanting to be married but churches don't have to perform same sex marriages.
-Even churches have to perform same sex marriage
-And fine those who speak against gay marriage
-Put them in prison
-Execute them
Now, those are just the possible positions I came up with off the top of my head. Given the time, I could make the list even more nuanced. However, given the available evidence, my guess is we polled the world and plotted their opinions on a graph that the view of the gentleman in the article would appear to be more extremists and Mudfrog's view the middle ground. To call opposition to same sex marriage extreme is to silently embrace the view of European exceptionalism that justified colonialism and slavery.
For the record, not only do I believe the state should allow gay marriage but I am willing to officiate.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
X is wrong/right and you cannot do otherwise is extreme.
So if X="murder" then the position "Murder is wrong and you cannot do otherwise" is extreme?. From a certain point of view, maybe, but it doesn't seem terribly meaningful to call people who think murder should be illegal "extremists".
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The problem is that people who 30 years ago - sorry, TWO years ago - held a reasonable, allowable and, more pertinently, legally-supported view, i.e. marriage is a heterosexual union, now find themselves labelled as extremists and targetted by exactly the same law that targets the people who use Youtube to show Christians being beheaded - and they haven't even said anything yet!!
These people - and I count myself as one of them - simply believe that marriage should be defined one particular way: the way it's been defined by common acceptance until 2 years ago.
They haven't altered their views, they haven't campaigned to change any laws, they haven't demanded legislation, etc. They've simply just been themselves and now they are being condemned as extremists overnight simply because they believe something that was perfectly OK a couple of years ago.
Mudfrog
You seem to be confused by the word 'extremist'. You probably think it has something to do with having an opinion that is in a small radical minority in society or someone who wants to make extreme radical changes to society.
However the people here calling you extremist are 'progressives' and they have a particular definition of extremism. If someone wants to change society in the direction of being more progressive then they are not an extremist, no matter how radical the change they want to make, no matter how much of a minority view it is. If someone advocates violence to achieve progressive goals then 'we can't condone that but we must understand the root causes, blah, blah.'
On the other hand someone who thinks that society should move in the direction of being less 'progressive' is an extremist even if the change they want to make is very small and popular with many people.
I hope that clarifies things for you
Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
X is wrong/right and you cannot do otherwise is extreme.
So if X="murder" then the position "Murder is wrong and you cannot do otherwise" is extreme?. From a certain point of view, maybe, but it doesn't seem terribly meaningful to call people who think murder should be illegal "extremists".
Not a good example. Look at the sentencing and you will see a lot of variation in how it is treated. And that is without even considering the other ways you can kill someone you should not have that do not result in a murder charge.
But you can have an extreme position without being an extremist or evil.
Believing animals should have the same rights as people is an extreme position. But it doesn't make a person an extremist. Not in the common definition of the word.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
Using the example of an RE teacher. I would think the teacher would be obligated to show how the definition of marriage has changed through the history of the Bible. There were at least six different definitions that I know of. Even in the New Testament, while Paul and Jesus, did use the example of one man and one woman, in their illustrations, a man could still have multiple wives.
I would even go so far as to say the RE teacher would also have to explain why liberal Christians can uphold equal marriage and why more conservative Christians still have problems. There are basically seven key scripture verses that seem to prohibit equal marriage from the conservative view, but liberals have a much different understanding of the same verses.
So, s/he should present both sides of the argument and let the students decide for themselves. Now, if the students ask him/her, "Well, what do you think?" I think the teacher should be able to say, "This is my view, but it is only my view and it is up to you to decide for yourselves what to accept." I am sure civics teachers are asked all the time what party they belong to. They are able to identify their political leanings, but they also have to encourage their students to think for themselves.
Now it would be extreme for a RE teacher to pressure students into thinking his/her beliefs are the only correct beliefs. The key point is "pressuring" students to believe as s/he does.
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The problem is that people who 30 years ago - sorry, TWO years ago - held a reasonable, allowable and, more pertinently, legally-supported view, i.e. marriage is a heterosexual union, now find themselves labelled as extremists and targetted by exactly the same law that targets the people who use Youtube to show Christians being beheaded - and they haven't even said anything yet!!
These people - and I count myself as one of them - simply believe that marriage should be defined one particular way: the way it's been defined by common acceptance until 2 years ago.
They haven't altered their views, they haven't campaigned to change any laws, they haven't demanded legislation, etc. They've simply just been themselves and now they are being condemned as extremists overnight simply because they believe something that was perfectly OK a couple of years ago.
Mudfrog
You seem to be confused by the word 'extremist'. You probably think it has something to do with having an opinion that is in a small radical minority in society or someone who wants to make extreme radical changes to society.
However the people here calling you extremist are 'progressives' and they have a particular definition of extremism. If someone wants to change society in the direction of being more progressive then they are not an extremist, no matter how radical the change they want to make, no matter how much of a minority view it is. If someone advocates violence to achieve progressive goals then 'we can't condone that but we must understand the root causes, blah, blah.'
On the other hand someone who thinks that society should move in the direction of being less 'progressive' is an extremist even if the change they want to make is very small and popular with many people.
I hope that clarifies things for you
All you've done is throw the doubt and argument onto a different word, "progressive".
Same-sex marriage is not very "progressive" in any case - more radical people in the LGBT community are in fact rather unhappy at what they perceive as a desire to go back to a thoroughly traditional institution, borrowed from heterosexuals.
And in the cases of the UK and New Zealand, at least, introduced by Conservative governments.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
You framed the issue as being about gay marriage and defined all those opposed to gay marriage as extremists. Of the 195 countries in the world, only 19 of them allow same sex marriage.
This line of reason perforce presupposes that if something is extremist, it is extremist in every single country on earth.
That's stupid.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
You framed the issue as being about gay marriage and defined all those opposed to gay marriage as extremists. Of the 195 countries in the world, only 19 of them allow same sex marriage. With the exception of South Africa and Israel, both outliers for historical and demographic reasons, no nation in Africa or Asia allows same sex marriage. Nearly every nation that allows same sex marriage is either in Europe or has a majority of people of European descent. In Brazil, Argentina, and Mexico, support for same sex marriage hovers around 50/50. In other words, you've framed the question in a way that makes extremists of billions of people of different races and creeds extremists while declaring as mainstream a view that is predominantly held by relatively affluent center left white people.
Of those 195 countries there aren't so many that can termed democracies either. The proportion of democratic countries that allow same-sex marriage is rather more than one in ten.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
What does democracy have to do with it? Even in countries where gay marriage is permitted, significant minorities or even majorities oppose same sex marriage. Even in countries with large majorities in favor of gay marriage, widespread support developed only in the last decade. I note that the support began with and spread by among those with the ability to influence wider culture. So, I doubt there is some widespread support for gay marriage among those living in undemocratic nations.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
You framed the issue as being about gay marriage and defined all those opposed to gay marriage as extremists. Of the 195 countries in the world, only 19 of them allow same sex marriage.
This line of reason perforce presupposes that if something is extremist, it is extremist in every single country on earth.
That's stupid.
And still is.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
No, it isn't.
Your detailed argument has been soundly refuted.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
Mudfrog - of all the things to be concerned about the Home Secretary doing, perhaps focus on the actual things she has done and not what you think she might do. They are not one and the same. There are plenty of things she has done affecting real people, rather more important.
Churches (and as far as I know, non-Christian religious groups) have widespread exemption from equality legislation, to the extent that they have exemption in such ways that negatively affect their own congregations eg the CoE being exempt from disability legislation. Has it not occurred to you, Mudfrog, that equality legislation protects Christians too?
This kind of paranoia about government legislation does Christians zero favours and makes churches look incredibly unappealling. If you want to protest about the government, maybe start with protesting their treatment of the poor and vulnerable and not imaginary legislation.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Your detailed argument has been soundly refuted.
Link?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
My first sentence was the refutation of your argument.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Thank you for condescending to discuss this.
"You framed the issue as being about gay marriage and defined all those opposed to gay marriage as extremists."? How so? You then go on to define extremism in terms of all countries. Did your interlocutor use that definition? If not you have created a straw man and are equivocating on "all".
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Even in countries with large majorities in favor of gay marriage, widespread support developed only in the last decade.
This is quite irrelevant. Laws apply in the here and now. You might just as well argue that we don't need laws against using a mobile phone while driving because it wasn't a problem when you were a kid.
And, as mousethief has been trying to point out to you, laws only apply in particular places. I'm assuming that the reason only some countries have laws against denial of the Holocaust is because those are the countries where denial of the Holocaust has been a significant and disruptive problem.
You're rather reminding me of the story I heard recently about a small Pacific island being told that if it wanted aid money, one of the requirements was that it had a law banning the manufacture of nuclear weapons.
[ 06. August 2015, 06:27: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
Wait, extending rights and freedoms to excluded groups is extremist?
It seems to me that very clearly there are some countries who are struggling to implement laws which give rights to more of their citizens, and there are other countries which continue to limit rights to those groups - to a lesser or greater extent.
Well, OK, if that's extreme, then fine. It is the kind of country I want to live in and the kind of world we should want for everyone on the planet.
Providing you are free to continue with your beliefs in private (and I think this applies to many other freedoms as well), there is no problem here. Nobody is forcing you to marry anyone you don't want to.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
This kind of paranoia about government legislation does Christians zero favours and makes churches look incredibly unappealling.
Amen.
So much so that I rarely admit that I go to Church. Most of the new friends I have made in my new occupation in the last two years don't know that I'm a Christian. I shall keep it that way unless asked outright, even then with many qualifiers. 'Christian' is starting to mean 'anti-equality' in this country ![[Frown]](frown.gif) ![[Tear]](graemlins/tear.gif)
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I'm assuming that the reason only some countries have laws against denial of the Holocaust is because those are the countries where denial of the Holocaust has been a significant and disruptive problem.
You're rather reminding me of the story I heard recently about a small Pacific island being told that if it wanted aid money, one of the requirements was that it had a law banning the manufacture of nuclear weapons.
Direct experience of the Holocaust, and possession of nuclear weapons, are particular to specific countries.
Sexuality issues are common to all humanity, so it would seem that any principle which is asserted regarding them, regardless of the actual content of the principle, must necessarily be universal on the model of a Kantian categorical imperative.
If SSM is right somewhere it is right everywhere, and if it is wrong somewhere it is wrong everywhere.
FWIW, I don't support legal prevention SSM, for the same reason I don't support legal prevention of idol worship; each is silly and meaningless, but as a general principle, people should be free to do what they like unless there is an overwhelming reason to stop them.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Extremist is a slippery term when the moral or political ground is shifting/has shifted.
For example, in the field of racism, I discovered recently that after the Berlin 1936 Olympics (where Jesse Owens won four gold medals) he and three other black athletes who were successful at the games were omitted from Roosevelt's invitation to the White House. At a reception in his honour at the Waldorf Astoria, he had to enter the hotel by the service entrance, not for security reasons but because of his colour. And when representing Ohio University at track and field meets, he was required to attend different "black" hotels.
Now by any standards in the US today, such behaviour would be taken to be the mark of extremists, and rightly so. The moral question has moved away, irreversibly, from colour of skin to content of character. And yet in the 1930s it appears to have been acceptable, even expected, establishment behaviour.
On current hot-button issues, it seems to me that the moral trajectory is also moving in favour of recognition that, for example, content of character is the true touchstone and no assumptions should be made based on other attributes. It's possible to believe that completely and hold a variety of other views as well. But, for example, if you believe that same sex orientation is a sign of "objective disorder" (as a Bishop once put it) then I think that, increasingly, your views will be considered to be at the very least unfair, and very probably evidence of an extreme attitude.
For some folks, the moral trajectory has already reached that point. For others, not so much. But I think that is the way things are going.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
It is extremist, in the sense of irrational and immoral, by any criteria to object to someone's ethnicity, since it is something they cannot control.
It is extremist in the same sense to object to someone's having an orientation, which they can't help, but not extremist to object to how they respond to the orientation, over which they have a choice.
It is extremist to object to married men's having an orientation to be polyamorous, but not extremist to object to their committing adultery - unless the objection takes the form of wanting to imprison or execute them.
[ 06. August 2015, 10:07: Message edited by: Kaplan Corday ]
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
My point was that previously socially acceptable attitudes and behaviour might become reclassified as extremist because of changed understandings.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
Boogie: quote:
'Christian' is starting to mean 'anti-equality' in this country
And it will go on meaning 'anti-equality' if the only people who are willing to claim a Christian identity in public are anti-gay, anti-feminist fundamentalists.
I must admit I am just as shy about telling new acquaintances that I'm a Christian as you are... but according to the Political Compass I am definitely an extremist. There are no political parties in England as far to the left as me - not even the Greens, although they are about where I am on libertarianism.
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
I agree with you, Barnabas62. And it worries me, because in spite of all the hoopla about tolerance, I think we are seeing a lot more real intolerance which could quickly turn into something nasty.
Ex. Why is it that whenever I see Christianity mentioned in my news feed it is inevitably some headline like "Christians and their creepy attitudes toward daughters" or "Christians trying to stop free healthcare for poor women"? The former is always an article about a very specific minor subculture of Christians (the ones with purity balls etc), but it is generalized to smear all of Christianity without exception; the latter headline is normally code for "Here's an instance of people peacefully standing outside an abortion clinic with signs," which may not float your political boat, but it's a far cry from deliberately targeting the poor and preventing them from getting dental treatment, cancer care, etc.
I've only seen these kinds of blatant anti-Christian stretches in the past couple of years. It concerns me a bit, as we'd never tolerate such misleading, slanted headlines aimed at any other group, and it seems to me the intention here is to stir up hate.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I'm assuming that the reason only some countries have laws against denial of the Holocaust is because those are the countries where denial of the Holocaust has been a significant and disruptive problem.
You're rather reminding me of the story I heard recently about a small Pacific island being told that if it wanted aid money, one of the requirements was that it had a law banning the manufacture of nuclear weapons.
Direct experience of the Holocaust, and possession of nuclear weapons, are particular to specific countries.
Sexuality issues are common to all humanity, so it would seem that any principle which is asserted regarding them, regardless of the actual content of the principle, must necessarily be universal on the model of a Kantian categorical imperative.
Well no, I don't agree. "Sexuality issues" is far too vague a term. The fact is that societal and cultural understanding of sexuality is not the same everywhere, and while I think that some places are handling the issue of homosexuality more to my liking than others, any law that's going to attempt to describe people as being too far away from a principle to be within the acceptable scope of public debate is necessarily going to have to take into account where the particular society is at.
This doesn't just apply to homosexuality, by the way. Women's rights, including in relation to marriage, and issues like female genital mutilation are handled very differently in different countries. Do I think that female genital mutilation is bad? Yes. Do I think it would make sense to label support of female genital mutilation as an "extreme" view in a country where a majority of the population support female genital mutilation? No. You can only measure what is "extreme" once you know what set you're measuring, and most laws aren't global.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
It is extremist, in the sense of irrational and immoral, by any criteria to object to someone's ethnicity, since it is something they cannot control.
It is extremist in the same sense to object to someone's having an orientation, which they can't help, but not extremist to object to how they respond to the orientation, over which they have a choice.
It is extremist to object to married men's having an orientation to be polyamorous, but not extremist to object to their committing adultery - unless the objection takes the form of wanting to imprison or execute them.
I don't know what you mean by "objecting". No-one objected to Owens' race in the sense of demanding that he stopped being black. They just didn't let him in places because he was black.
I also don't know how you made "extremist" a synonym for "irrational", or either of them into synonyms for "immoral".
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
It concerns me a bit, as we'd never tolerate such misleading, slanted headlines aimed at any other group
Apart from Muslims, refugees/asylum seekers, the mentally ill (they do all the shootings, y'know) and in your part of the world Mexicans and black people.
Society barely tolerates headlines that AREN'T slanted. The reason you notice the ones slanted against Christians is because you're a Christian. When some group you're not part of gets hit, not so much.
[ 06. August 2015, 13:33: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
For professional reasons (a time travel novel) I have been reading deeply about this for some while now. And it is inarguable that morality does evolve. It changes, sometimes right out from under us, within your lifetime, within your decade even.
Yeah, it was OK for Don Draper to drink scotch and then chase secretaries around the conference room table. Don't do it today if you want to keep your job.
The change is always aggravating and stressful. There is nothing you can do about it but adapt. It is not going backwards. It will never be OK to chase that secretary again.
When Christians stupidly hitch religion to this mistaken nostalgia, it only leads to tears. Because waving the Bible still doesn't make it go backwards, and simply makes us all look like cretins.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Boogie: quote:
'Christian' is starting to mean 'anti-equality' in this country
And it will go on meaning 'anti-equality' if the only people who are willing to claim a Christian identity in public are anti-gay, anti-feminist fundamentalists.
Fair point.
I'm also to the left of the Greens politically - and have no qualms at all about revealing that.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
[ 06. August 2015, 14:49: Message edited by: Boogie ]
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Using the example of an RE teacher. I would think the teacher would be obligated to show how the definition of marriage has changed through the history of the Bible. There were at least six different definitions that I know of. Even in the New Testament, while Paul and Jesus, did use the example of one man and one woman, in their illustrations, a man could still have multiple wives.
I would even go so far as to say the RE teacher would also have to explain why liberal Christians can uphold equal marriage and why more conservative Christians still have problems. There are basically seven key scripture verses that seem to prohibit equal marriage from the conservative view, but liberals have a much different understanding of the same verses.
So, s/he should present both sides of the argument and let the students decide for themselves. Now, if the students ask him/her, "Well, what do you think?" I think the teacher should be able to say, "This is my view, but it is only my view and it is up to you to decide for yourselves what to accept." I am sure civics teachers are asked all the time what party they belong to. They are able to identify their political leanings, but they also have to encourage their students to think for themselves.
Now it would be extreme for a RE teacher to pressure students into thinking his/her beliefs are the only correct beliefs. The key point is "pressuring" students to believe as s/he does.
That describes my position as an RE teacher perfectly.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
originally posted by lilbuddha:
"You framed the issue as being about gay marriage and defined all those opposed to gay marriage as extremists."? How so? You then go on to define extremism in terms of all countries. Did your interlocutor use that definition? If not you have created a straw man and are equivocating on "all".
Lilbuddha defined opposition to gay marriage as extremist. Seeing as all countries have some form of marriage and indeed most societies throughout history have had marriage and homosexuality, I think world opinion matters. Furthermore, I don't see why extremism is measured by country. States and even cities have larger and more diverse populations than some of the nations of Europe.
For the sake of argument, let's assume that the definition of extremism is specific to each country and can change over time. Let us also assume that in the 21st Century UK that Mudfrog's views on gay marriage are extremist. By that reasoning, nearly all UK Shipmates are political extremists. In fact, the only UK shipmate I know for sure who is not a political extremist is Marvin the Martian.
Why do I say this?
Opposition to gay marriage stands at around 32%. Support for Labour in the most recent election was 30%. So, if Mudfrog is an extremist, Labour supporters are also extremists. Now, that 30% includes the much despised Blairite faction of Labour which is really just Tory lite. They aren't true Leftists, no sir re Bob. What I've garnered from reading UK political discussion on the Ship is that most Shipmates desire an option to the Left of Labour. When was the last time a Labour Party not espousing Blairism but true Leftwing ideas was in power. It's been a long time if ever. A political party advocating truly Leftwing policies would be extreme in the 21st Century UK. Therefore, I conclude that most UK Shipmates are political extremists. As is the new custom, extremists should be publicly shamed and ostracized by right thinking people in the mainstream.
quote:
originally posted by orfeo:
This is quite irrelevant. Laws apply in the here and now. You might just as well argue that we don't need laws against using a mobile phone while driving because it wasn't a problem when you were a kid.
The ancient Sumerians had marriage and homosexuality. Cell phones they did not have.
quote:
originally posted by orfeo:
And, as mousethief has been trying to point out to you, laws only apply in particular places. I'm assuming that the reason only some countries have laws against denial of the Holocaust is because those are the countries where denial of the Holocaust has been a significant and disruptive problem.
Again...both marriage and same sex attraction are ubiquitous.
quote:
originally posted by mrcheesy:
Wait, extending rights and freedoms to excluded groups is extremist?
Koch brothers been called extremists for decades and all they wanted was to extend rights and freedoms for everybody. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The problem is that people who 30 years ago - sorry, TWO years ago - held a reasonable, allowable and, more pertinently, legally-supported view, i.e. marriage is a heterosexual union, now find themselves labelled as extremists and targetted by exactly the same law that targets the people who use Youtube to show Christians being beheaded - and they haven't even said anything yet!!
These people - and I count myself as one of them - simply believe that marriage should be defined one particular way: the way it's been defined by common acceptance until 2 years ago.
They haven't altered their views, they haven't campaigned to change any laws, they haven't demanded legislation, etc. They've simply just been themselves and now they are being condemned as extremists overnight simply because they believe something that was perfectly OK a couple of years ago.
Mudfrog
You seem to be confused by the word 'extremist'. You probably think it has something to do with having an opinion that is in a small radical minority in society or someone who wants to make extreme radical changes to society.
However the people here calling you extremist are 'progressives' and they have a particular definition of extremism. If someone wants to change society in the direction of being more progressive then they are not an extremist, no matter how radical the change they want to make, no matter how much of a minority view it is. If someone advocates violence to achieve progressive goals then 'we can't condone that but we must understand the root causes, blah, blah.'
On the other hand someone who thinks that society should move in the direction of being less 'progressive' is an extremist even if the change they want to make is very small and popular with many people.
I hope that clarifies things for you
All you've done is throw the doubt and argument onto a different word, "progressive".
Same-sex marriage is not very "progressive" in any case - more radical people in the LGBT community are in fact rather unhappy at what they perceive as a desire to go back to a thoroughly traditional institution, borrowed from heterosexuals.
And in the cases of the UK and New Zealand, at least, introduced by Conservative governments.
By progressive I mean someone who equates the trend in society towards greater social liberalism with moral progress.
As for the Conservative Parties I don't know much about the New Zealand Party but in the UK it is led by David Cameron who is very obviously a progressive, like some earlier Conservative leaders (most obviously Harold MacMillan). The fact that the Conservative party has had a number of leaders who were not progressives (e.g. Margaret Thatcher, Winston Churchill and The 3rd Marquess of Salisbury) doesn't mean that progressivism hasn't been a major part of that party for a long time. This is even more true today under Cameron's leadership.
Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:
originally posted by mousethief:
"You framed the issue as being about gay marriage and defined all those opposed to gay marriage as extremists."? How so? You then go on to define extremism in terms of all countries. Did your interlocutor use that definition? If not you have created a straw man and are equivocating on "all".
Lilbuddha defined opposition to gay marriage as extremist.
Nope. First, didn't add the suffix. 2nd, I was speaking within the context of a particular issue.
This is the actual quote.
quote:
Gay marriage is wrong and should not be allowed. Extreme one side.
Churches should be forced to marry gay people. Extreme other side.
Equal marriage under state law is what should be, let the churches do what they will. Not extreme.
Now, perhaps I should have prefaced with 'Withing the context of the equal marriage dispute'. But you broadened the scope by several factors.
ETA: if you have an issue, it doesn't completely matter where people on it group as far as labeling a viewpoint extreme.
Take theft. If the majority of a society thinks torture and death are the appropriate punishments for theft, that is still an extreme view. Not because I do not agree, but because there is not very far to go on one side, but a lot of room on the other.
[ 06. August 2015, 22:43: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Where do I start...
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Furthermore, I don't see why extremism is measured by country.
Because laws are passed by country. That's the context.
quote:
Let us also assume that in the 21st Century UK that Mudfrog's views on gay marriage are extremist. By that reasoning, nearly all UK Shipmates are political extremists. In fact, the only UK shipmate I know for sure who is not a political extremist is Marvin the Martian.
Why do I say this?
Opposition to gay marriage stands at around 32%. Support for Labour in the most recent election was 30%. So, if Mudfrog is an extremist, Labour supporters are also extremists.
So many issues. First of all, I don't think anyone is lumping all "opposition to marriage" into one basket (except for you, apparently). 32% of people giving an answer in an opinion poll is not remotely the same as 32% of people feeling the need to stand in front of microphones to denounce gay marriage, or 32% of people organising advertising campaigns, or whatever.
Secondly, and related, is that you've divided everyone into 2 binary groups with a yes/no question. It's bloody obvious that any definition of "extremism" can't work with binary groups. You can only be extreme on a spectrum. Whereas with binary groups the word you're looking for is "minority".
quote:
The ancient Sumerians had marriage and homosexuality. Cell phones they did not have.
They did not have our conception of homosexuality, which, as has been pointed out many many times in the course of discussing "what the Bible says about homosexuality", did not develop until at least the 19th century.
quote:
Again...both marriage and same sex attraction are ubiquitous.
Again, cultural understandings of same sex attraction are not. You might as well say that killing people is ubiquitous, because understandings of the times that killing a person is acceptable are most definitely not universal over space and time.
[ 06. August 2015, 23:34: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Macrina
Shipmate
# 8807
|
Posted
As I see it the law seems to be saying you cannot teach an exclusive position on religious or ethical views.
If you personally, or the denomination your school belongs to believe that INSERT DEAD HORSE here then of course you can teach that. But you can't teach it to the exclusion of all other positions.
So you have to say I/we believe that INSERT DEAD HORSE HERE is right and moral for these reasons but there are those who disagree with this position for these other reasons and teach those too.
If people do that then I don't really have any problem with whatever positions they take provided they give space to others to disagree. I have a serious problem when the right to dissenting opinion disappears under 'But God'.
Posts: 535 | From: Christchurch, New Zealand | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Macrina:
As I see it the law seems to be saying you cannot teach an exclusive position on religious or ethical views.
If you personally, or the denomination your school belongs to believe that INSERT DEAD HORSE here then of course you can teach that. But you can't teach it to the exclusion of all other positions.
So you have to say I/we believe that INSERT DEAD HORSE HERE is right and moral for these reasons but there are those who disagree with this position for these other reasons and teach those too.
If people do that then I don't really have any problem with whatever positions they take provided they give space to others to disagree. I have a serious problem when the right to dissenting opinion disappears under 'But God'.
I believe that is the case - there is certainly much less scope for faith schools in England and presumably Wales to teach an exclusive position, especially on Creation/evolution matters. I believe that it is different for faith schools (or at least Catholic) schools in Scotland. Would be interesting to know how it is in NI.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I agree with you, Barnabas62. And it worries me, because in spite of all the hoopla about tolerance, I think we are seeing a lot more real intolerance which could quickly turn into something nasty.
Ex. Why is it that whenever I see Christianity mentioned in my news feed it is inevitably some headline like "Christians and their creepy attitudes toward daughters" or "Christians trying to stop free healthcare for poor women"? The former is always an article about a very specific minor subculture of Christians (the ones with purity balls etc), but it is generalized to smear all of Christianity without exception; the latter headline is normally code for "Here's an instance of people peacefully standing outside an abortion clinic with signs," which may not float your political boat, but it's a far cry from deliberately targeting the poor and preventing them from getting dental treatment, cancer care, etc.
I've only seen these kinds of blatant anti-Christian stretches in the past couple of years. It concerns me a bit, as we'd never tolerate such misleading, slanted headlines aimed at any other group, and it seems to me the intention here is to stir up hate.
Lumping people together in order to diss them is, correctly, normally taken as a sign of prejudice. It may well be that Christians are, here and there, suffering unfairly from guilt by association.
I find the best answer to that is to ask a question. "Would you like to know my personal opinion, rather than assuming you already know it?". You then get into interesting territory, such as "why do you keep associating with them?".
Legislation can certainly help mitigate unfairness but IME prejudices generally get broken down best at a speed of one person at a time. Including our own, of course.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
If the police treat you as a terrorist simply for liking an unfashionable country, then I'm thinking maybe Mudfrog is right about this after all.
Craziness.
And stupidity. I bet the police didn't even check out the website, because 30 seconds of viewing would've told them the nature of the slogan.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
If the police treat you as a terrorist simply for liking an unfashionable country, then I'm thinking maybe Mudfrog is right about this after all.
Craziness.
How the Met handled that is not good. But it in no way validates Mudfrog's the sky is falling and Christians will be fed to the lions POV.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
Can I ask why we think that a Western government from 2015 onwards would NOT begin to introduce laws that severely restrict freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, freedom to express beliefs, freedom to dissent from Government philosophies?
Why do we think that an oppressive regime will only exist in North Korea, Afghanistan or Europe in the 1930s?
Might it not happen again?
I wonder if those Germans who in 1933 began to openly 'discuss' the direction the government was taking were also accused of shouting 'the sky is falling'.
Now, before you fall over and laugh at me for trying to suggest that David Cameron is like Hitler, I am in no way doing that; what I am doing is suggesting that it is unwise to assume that a twentyfirst century government would never introduce any laws that would penalise freedom of conscience and limit the exercise of freedom of speech and/or dissent from Government policy.
I think there are still people on this thread who have not grasped the difference between me holding an opinion that is allegedly 'extreme' (in their opinion) and a law directed at eradicating 'extremists' (aka people expressing support for terrorists and their cause) that also affects someone's right to say 'the government is wrong to change the definition of marriage.'
[ 07. August 2015, 08:02: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
Mudfrog, can I ask whether you think there is a difference in your (let's say) unfashionable belief about marriage and expressing a liking to Iran? Would it make a difference if it was a van with a phrase about North Korea, South Sudan, Hamas, Islamic State.. etc?
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
How the Met handled that is not good. But it in no way validates Mudfrog's the sky is falling and Christians will be fed to the lions POV.
Well it certainly seems to suggest that the police, if not the rest of society, reacts with a trigger-finger to anyone expressing an unfashionable view, whoever benign it actually is.
One wonders what would have happened if a van had been driven around with "I think SSM should not be legal" on the back. As far as I understood, this could under no circumstances be considered to be a threat to violence and therefore perfectly legal. However.. well, that doesn't appear to be the case here.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Can I ask why we think that a Western government from 2015 onwards would NOT begin to introduce laws that severely restrict freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, freedom to express beliefs, freedom to dissent from Government philosophies?
Because there aren't enough votes in it. Persecuting you is fun, Mudfrog, but not that fun.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
You know what just struck me?
This entire debate is basically centred around an incident where politicians suggested something to stop nasty Muslims, and people tended to nod their heads and say "yes, let's stop the nasty Muslims", and then someone suggested that actually it could apply to Christians as well and everyone started losing their shit.
This is a recurring theme in recent years.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
You know what just struck me?
This entire debate is basically centred around an incident where politicians suggested something to stop nasty Muslims, and people tended to nod their heads and say "yes, let's stop the nasty Muslims", and then someone suggested that actually it could apply to Christians as well and everyone started losing their shit.
This is a recurring theme in recent years.
Erm, the fundamental difference is that the 'nasty Muslims' (as you put it) are prone to blowing up buses and slicing the heads off people, whereas the Christians we are talking about are simply saying, 'actually we are of the opinion that marriage should only be one man and one woman.'
Spot the difference.
I don't see any Christians from the local Methodist church turning up to a registar's office on a wet Thursday afternoon wielding a meat cleaver with which to behead the groom and his husband, shouting 'Jesus is Lord!'
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
You know what just struck me?
This entire debate is basically centred around an incident where politicians suggested something to stop nasty Muslims, and people tended to nod their heads and say "yes, let's stop the nasty Muslims", and then someone suggested that actually it could apply to Christians as well and everyone started losing their shit.
This is a recurring theme in recent years.
Erm, the fundamental difference is that the 'nasty Muslims' (as you put it) are prone to blowing up buses and slicing the heads off people, whereas the Christians we are talking about are simply saying, 'actually we are of the opinion that marriage should only be one man and one woman.'
Spot the difference.
I don't see any Christians from the local Methodist church turning up to a registar's office on a wet Thursday afternoon wielding a meat cleaver with which to behead the groom and his husband, shouting 'Jesus is Lord!'
Yes because Christians have never committed acts of terrorism and all Muslims are terrorists.
What the actual fuck.
Probably doesn't help to counter accusations of homophobia with some fairly hugely Islamophobic comments.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
You know what just struck me?
This entire debate is basically centred around an incident where politicians suggested something to stop nasty Muslims, and people tended to nod their heads and say "yes, let's stop the nasty Muslims", and then someone suggested that actually it could apply to Christians as well and everyone started losing their shit.
This is a recurring theme in recent years.
Erm, the fundamental difference is that the 'nasty Muslims' (as you put it) are prone to blowing up buses and slicing the heads off people, whereas the Christians we are talking about are simply saying, 'actually we are of the opinion that marriage should only be one man and one woman.'
Spot the difference.
I don't see any Christians from the local Methodist church turning up to a registar's office on a wet Thursday afternoon wielding a meat cleaver with which to behead the groom and his husband, shouting 'Jesus is Lord!'
Yes because Christians have never committed acts of terrorism and all Muslims are terrorists.
What the actual fuck.
Probably doesn't help to counter accusations of homophobia with some fairly hugely Islamophobic comments.
Excuse me, but I am simply referring to Orfeo's point. I have not made any 'hugely Islamophobic comments'.
No one has said 'all Muslims are terrorists' at all!
How would you justify saying that a terrorist with a machete is in any way in the same group as a Christian simply saying they don't agree with the change of law regarding marriage.
Have you EVER seen Christian in the UK doing acts of extreme violence against anyone in order to protest against same sex marriage? Specifically?
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
You know what just struck me?
This entire debate is basically centred around an incident where politicians suggested something to stop nasty Muslims, and people tended to nod their heads and say "yes, let's stop the nasty Muslims", and then someone suggested that actually it could apply to Christians as well and everyone started losing their shit.
This is a recurring theme in recent years.
Erm, the fundamental difference is that the 'nasty Muslims' (as you put it) are prone to blowing up buses and slicing the heads off people, whereas the Christians we are talking about are simply saying, 'actually we are of the opinion that marriage should only be one man and one woman.'
Spot the difference.
I don't see any Christians from the local Methodist church turning up to a registar's office on a wet Thursday afternoon wielding a meat cleaver with which to behead the groom and his husband, shouting 'Jesus is Lord!'
No, it isn't that "nasty Muslims" are blowing up buses etc, etc, but that "nasty people" are doing these things. You may as well make the point that gay bars are attacked by straight people while straight bars and pubs haven't AFAICT, been attacked by gay terrorists. Christians, Muslims, atheists, what the heck. People are people, some do very nasty stuff and should be treated thus.
How about treating crimes as crimes (including war crimes) and leaving out the sectarianism and divisiveness? Or should we simply admit that it's easier and more fun to demolish bridges than to build and maintain them.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
