Uechi-Ryu.com

cxt wrote:Meta

If your not going to try and do so--why bother with a discussion at all?

If your making up both sides of conversation anyway--you don't really need anyone else.

After looking back at my previous posts, I'm afraid I fail to see where I specifically misquoted or mis-stated what you had written, except perhaps to expand (through Meta-colored classes) a concept to it's (from my perspective) logical conclusion. I often think in abstract terms, which can lead to confusion and perhaps appear as
interpolation.

If in the end, it seems to the reader as if I am misquoting you, that was not the intention.
And thusly If as well by doing so, I have invoked certain degrees of consternations in some people, then I do humbly apologize.
Gomen nasai.
m(_)m

Meta

I'll say it AGAIN--I am not mad or hacked at all.

Seriously.

We just need to be more careful of the points raised in the discussion.

You were debating about 3 people at once--things can easily start slipping with all that going on.

I said the media was hostile to christains---you spun it into me saying that the "government was persecuting christians."

Which was not my arguement at all--nor did I say anything about the "government persecuting christains"

All I'm saying is that we---I SAID "WE"-- need to keep the extrapolation/interpolation to a minium.

(as far as dealing with specific statements in concerned)

And deal with what is actually said---as opposed to what folks "think" was said.

See when you take upon yourself to "expand a concept" beyond the scope of what people have actually said--WITHOUT frameing the arguement/telling folks that is what you have done.

You get folks like me reading it--and going "w-t-f??--I didn't say that!!!!!!!"

We also need to drop this and move on.

We where having a good discussion and I'd like to get back to it.

Please???

cxt wrote:Meta
We also need to drop this and move on.

Two Zen monks were walking down a forest path when they came to a rather deep stream.
There, standing by the bank, was a young woman.
"I must get to town today, but I cannot cross the stream, will one of you aid me?" asked the woman.

One of the monks agreed to carry the woman across the stream on his back.
Upon crossing the stream, the woman thanked the monks and all parted ways.

Hours later, one of the Monks mused:
"I wonder if that woman will be able to make it back home across the stream."
The first monk then replied: " You had carried her across the stream and set her down upon the opposite bank many hours ago.
Why do you still carry her?"

My birthday is the day after Christmas. All the major retailers, though, send only "Happy holiday" wishes in their circulars. This means that stores are declaring war on Christmas babies.

If they don't start sending out advertisements that include a "Happy birthday" greeting, I plan to boycott. Who's with me???

This ridiculous spat over "Happy holidays" brings to mind a Ralph Waldo Emerson quote: "Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted."

(The above was taken from a letter to the editor in my local paper).

Nice.

kempomama wrote: This ridiculous spat over "Happy holidays" brings to mind a Ralph Waldo Emerson quote: "Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted."

That is an excellent quote and I wish I had heard it earlier.

Kempomama

Its only rediculous because you don't have a dog in the fight.

Does not matter to you--does not matter to me for that matter either.

Clearly other people feel differently.

Look at it like this---if your birthday represented say 70%-80% of the people that lived in the USA--then retailers--if they wish to make money that is--should be paying attention to the market and its wishes.
In that situation I predict that your birthday would suddenly become a MAJOR event with anyone whom wanted to make any money.

Like I said, I'm not really a practicing Christain---but looking at things from their side of it--I can see why they are angered.

Taken individually they seem small events--taken togather its argueable that a disquiteing patten exists.

You have folks running around trying to get pictures of crosses removed from the City Seal of Los Cruces for cats sake.
Only been there for 100+ years

Folks that get on TV to object to the use of roadside crosses--placed there by family and friends of dead LEO's as a memorial to where they fell.
And the friends/family of victems of car wrecks as well.

People changing very old traditonal songs to remove mentions of "god" or "holy" for school "holiday" events.

Lawsuits being filed to stop people from using PUBLIC lands for nativity tabula.

Carvings of Jesus being dunked into a jar of urine as taxpayer funded "artwork."

The oddity of an "outraged" media releasing an inaccurate report that copies of the Koran had been desicrated in Git-mo thereby touching off riots that resulted in folks being killed.
Strangly their "outrage" was nowhere to be found with the "art work" of Piss Christ--detailed above.

The lesson I learned from the media's handleing of both stories was that the media views the slighest precieved or real affront to relgion is an abomnation that must be confronted and denounced at every possible turn.

Unless of course the affront is to Christains and their faith---those folks can be attacked and reviled with impunity.

Its against this backdrop that you throw in business that set up a calculated, delibrate policy NOT to use the term "merry christmas" for a greeting.

No doubt that "tolerance" was the claimed motive.

And as the christian set quite rightly asks--

"Where is the "tolerence" for OUR beliefs and faith??"

Like I said, I'm not really a practicing Christain---but looking at things from their side of it--I can see why they are angered.

I'm a practicing Christian and am not angered...not one bit.

Gene

Gene

Not everyone is.

There are practicing people of all faiths that are fully supporting the "merry christmas" campaign as well.

I only mentioned it because this issue is not personal with me.

I don't really have a dog in the fight.

cxt wrote:Look at it like this---if your birthday represented say 70%-80% of the people that lived in the USA--then retailers--if they wish to make money that is--should be paying attention to the market and its wishes.
In that situation I predict that your birthday would suddenly become a MAJOR event with anyone whom wanted to make any money.

Meta: It sounds to me as if you are saying "Since one group hold a certain view, then majority's voice should be the predominant one allowable.
Is what you are trying to say?
Or something else?

cxt wrote: Like I said, I'm not really a practicing Christain---but looking at things from their side of it--I can see why they are angered.

Meta: How do you mean?
In what way, specifically, do you empathize with their position? And to clarify, which position?

cxt wrote: Taken individually they seem small events--taken togather its argueable that a disquiteing patten exists.

Meta: What sort of pattern are you referring to?

cxt wrote: You have folks running around trying to get pictures of crosses removed from the City Seal of Los Cruces for cats sake.
Only been there for 100+ years

Meta: And why not? If suddenly the city decided to place a big Buddha on the seal would you have issue?
Specifically, what does length of time factor into it?
Tradition?
Does that, in your view, make something more or less valid?
If so, I would argue that other countries who's' "traditions" go back thousands of years have done such actions, and yet America has only 200+ years of "official" existence.

cxt wrote:
Folks that get on TV to object to the use of roadside crosses--placed there by family and friends of dead LEO's as a memorial to where they fell.
And the friends/family of victems of car wrecks as well.

Meta: We have cemeteries for a reason.
Setting up memorials on the road to mark the death spot of a person should be done with non-denominational objects, If at all.

cxt wrote:
People changing very old traditonal songs to remove mentions of "god" or "holy" for school "holiday" events.

Meta: I agree, they should be removed from Government sponsored events and public schools. In the private sector, have at it! Scream about Jebus and God all you like.
How would you feel if you had to listen to references to other religions for 30 + days out of the year, and it was condoned and or otherwise sponsored by the Government?
That is exactly what is happening.

cxt wrote: Lawsuits being filed to stop people from using PUBLIC lands for nativity tabula.

Meta: Rightly so. Like I said, I have no issue with anyone who wants do "whatever" on private property. Just don't use my tax dollars to promote a particular faith.

cxt wrote: Carvings of Jesus being dunked into a jar of urine as taxpayer funded "artwork."

Meta: Interesting. More info please? If that statement is true, that is quite heinous.

cxt wrote: The oddity of an "outraged" media releasing an inaccurate report that copies of the Koran had been desicrated in Git-mo thereby touching off riots that resulted in folks being killed.

Meta: Or is that what the "media" or "others" want you to believe?

cxt wrote: Strangly their "outrage" was nowhere to be found with the "art work" of Piss Christ--detailed above.

Meta: I'd like to see that.

cxt wrote: The lesson I learned from the media's handleing of both stories was that the media views the slighest precieved or real affront to relgion is an abomnation that must be confronted and denounced at every possible turn.

Meta: So...You're saying that the media is protecting Christianity?...That's what you wrote..was it a typo?

cxt wrote: Unless of course the affront is to Christains and their faith---those folks can be attacked and reviled with impunity.

Meta: Sorry, I lost you there..

cxt wrote: Its against this backdrop that you throw in business that set up a calculated, delibrate policy NOT to use the term "merry christmas" for a greeting.
No doubt that "tolerance" was the claimed motive.

Meta: I do apologize, but again, I can't seem to understand what point you were trying to make here.
It is as if you became a bit derailed.

cxt wrote: And as the christian set quite rightly asks--
"Where is the "tolerence" for OUR beliefs and faith??"

Meta: The "Tolerance" as you put it, is the simple right to exist, something which is not available as a "right" in most countries of the world. Tolerance means, I tolerate you, give you equal time for expression, and allow you to thrive and worship as you see fit under the law.
What it does NOT entitle one to do, is encroach upon the rights of others by displaying or propagating, or otherwise functioning using public funds, land or other property, under the promotion or of support of the United States Government.
Public entities can do whatever they wish as long as it does not break the law.

My bottom line:
Religion needs to stay in it's own playground, and stop it's attempts at inserting itself into secular activities.
To truly promote "Tolerance" for all faiths, this separation is vital, and intrinsic to the foundation of this Government.

The Religious Right has been upset about the pee dunked crucifix since the 80's. 20 years later they still resurect the story of how an artist using money from the national endowment for the arts used government money to make it.... as if government officials want to hire someone to specifically do that.

Good point. Taking it a step further, the problems aren't from Christians, Moslems, Hindus, Jews, etc. The problems come from rabid fundamentalists... of all ilks! It seems that all to often, those who are the strictest "fundamentalists" of their religion show the least tolerance for anyone who has a differing view, religion, outlook. On the most basic level, just about every religion espouses an attitude of tolerance and peace. Unfortunately, some folks, regardless of their claims of their religious beliefs, get side-tracked and ignore those parts of their religion that admonish them to promote tolerance and peace.

I agree!!!!
Even zen buddism(spelling! ) has shown ssigns of extremism in world war two, religion in japan was used as a motivator for the kamakazee thingy!!
If i can i will reference it.
And for hinduism, there is the Tamil tigers.

Meta

No, that's NOT what I'm trying to say.

Very clear and took some pains to make sure that was NOT the point--please try and keep up ok?

The point, in context, was that tolerence is to be extended to the both the majority and the minority.

Its just as bad for the minority to enforce THEIR views and outlook as it is for the majority to do so.

The rest of your "arguements" are simply not worth commenting on as they again, are misunderstanding of my posts.

Case in point---the "piss christ" example--IN CONTEXT, it clearly refers to the media defense of ANY RELGION BUT CHRiSTAINTY--as you would know if you:

A-Took the time to read posts throughly prior to posting yourself.

B-Quit taking them out of context.

Taking statements out of context is a method of arguement reserved for children and the weak.

Look meta--if thats the best you can do--please don't waste my time anymore.

ZzZzZzzzzZzz...
....huh?...wha--?

...So solly!

wha you say again?
I not paying 'tention.

Las' post was wuuun week-a-go!

Way you bin?

Way you so srow?......you Sro-poke!

We-ah, alledee feenish deesa topic!
You go now! Chop! chop!
Make-a beeeeg prolem wit anudda tread now!