Free speech for me but not for thee. ACLU busted!

Foxfyre wrote:

He must be a miserably unhappy human being with a lot of time on his hands. None of my Jewish friends understand how the presence of a cross, Christian or otherwise, harms them in any way any more than the presence of a Minorah or Star of david harms their Christian friends. Until all this stupid anti-Christian stuff started some time back, Jewish kids had fun singing Christian Christmas carols and the Christian kids enjoyed learning some Jewish songs.

I feel sorry for anyone with that much anger and hatred....

With all due repect, Foxfyre, you seem to have a convenient number of "friends", allegedly from the opposite side, whom you drag up to prove that people on the other side of any issue are oddballs and extremists.

The reactions of Jews that I have met toward Christmas seem to be fairly diverse. Some seem to be fairly indifferent to Christmas celebrations, some are mildly opposed but don't get too emotionally involved, and some have real problems when the clebrations are publicly funded.

I have talked to one Jewish woman, one who has close Christian friends, who will not celebrate Hanakkuh because it was a relatively minor holiday in the Jewish calendar but much later got built up as the Jewish answer to Christmas. To her, that meant a form of capitulation of her own religion to Christianity, and she refuses to go along. Again, she had a great many Christian friends and did not live in any kind of segregated Jewish community, but that was the way she felt about it. I am sure there are quite a few others in the Jewish community who agree.

As a member of the religious majority your whole life, you seem to have never talked to anyone who was not part of that majority in any depth, or even paused to consider what it must be like to try to maintain your religious identity and the identity of your children during a month when almost everyone is celebrating an event you don't believe in. Or year round, when you and your children are faced with religious messages which drive home, over and over, just what a minority you are.

It is clear there is a diversity of opinion among Jews and other religious minorities toward town signs which contain religious symbols, just as there is toward Christmas. I am sure some don't particularly object, but I am also sure that a sizable percentage do. And I am not willing to rely on your experience with religious minorities on this, as I am in no way certain that such experience actually exists in any abundance.

0 Replies

kelticwizard wrote:

With all due repect, Foxfyre, you seem to have a convenient number of "friends", allegedly from the opposite side, whom you drag up to prove that people on the other side of any issue are oddballs and extremists.

Quote:

The 2006 survey was conducted for the American Jewish Committee by Synovate (formerly Market Facts), a leading survey-research organization. Respondents were interviewed by telephone between September 25 - October 16, 2006; no interviewing took place on the Sabbath and Jewish holidays. The sample consisted of 958 self-identifying Jewish respondents selected from the Synovate consumer mail panel. The respondents are demographically representative of the United States adult Jewish population on a variety of measures. The margin of error for the sample as a whole is plus or minus 3 percentage points.

from the latest opinion poll (2006 Annual Survey of Jewish Opinion, September 25 - October 16, 2006) by the American Jewish Committee.

0 Replies

KW writes

Quote:

With all due repect, Foxfyre, you seem to have a convenient number of "friends", allegedly from the opposite side, whom you drag up to prove that people on the other side of any issue are oddballs and extremists.

Convenient or not, for much of my adult life, my vocations and avocations have put me into widely diverse and quite eclectic as well as ecumenical relationships and I have formed friendships within those relationships. I'm sorry if you find it offensive or that I cite my personal experience for at least part of the basis on which I form my opinions. I admire you for your apparent ability to form opinions from what must be a sterlile vacuum and I marvel at your own circle of friends and acquaintances that must include nobody different from yourself.

That "the other side are oddballs and extremists" are your words and not words that I have ever or would likely use. That I have never known a Jew with sufficient hatred or resentment of Christianity to file suit or even complain about a symbol used in a city seal is a fact. That I consider such hatred and resentment to be outside of the 'norm' is an opinion I am fully within my right to hold and which, in my opinion, is fully rational. So bite me.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

That I have never known a Jew with sufficient hatred or resentment of Christianity to file suit or even complain about a symbol used in a city seal is a fact.

Would a Jew require a hatred or resentment of Christianity itself to file such a suit? No. I do think they would require a resentment of Christian symbols being given official status, which is quite a different thing.

What you are trying to do is to equate a minority feeling that the majority's religious symbols, which they have to face in a private context all the time, have made the leap to being given official sanction.

That is something very different from hating Christianity, in the same way that a person might not care very much if a person smokes or not, but will care quite a bit if they smoke a few feet from them in a place where smoking is expressly prohibited.

There is no hatred involved if the nonsmoker simply points out that this is not the place for smokers.

Besides trying to characterize the people who filed the suit as Christian haters, you made the perfectly ridiculous assertion that Jews have never been bothered by some of the expressions of Christmas, and indeed were always happy as ducks to take part in them as long as a bone was thrown their way in the form of a few Jewish songs being included in the celebration. Yes, some Jews did decide to go along,and indeed the elevation of the Hanukkah holiday is an expression of that. But not so long ago, Jews were legally and systematically excluded from many things-"Gentlemen's Agreement" and all that-and giving the appearance of going along was a necessity for them.

Ascribing some Jews' new-found willingness to question Christian symbols being included in official capacities is not the result of a minority turning anti-Christian. It is a result of several decades of civil rights legislation making it easier and easier for people to stick up for themselves-something they dared not do in the forties and fifties.

Your picture of American Jews being pleased as Punch to join in the holiday fun and stumbling over themselves to join in the caroling illustrates a complete lack of knowledge of their situation, attitudes and coping mechanisms, combined with an eagerness to condemn those who stand up for their religious identity. Unless it coincides with your own religious identity.

0 Replies

kelticwizard wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
That I have never known a Jew with sufficient hatred or resentment of Christianity to file suit or even complain about a symbol used in a city seal is a fact.

Would a Jew require a hatred or resentment of Christianity itself to file such a suit? No. I do think they would require a resentment of Christian symbols being given official status, which is quite a different thing.

What you are trying to do is to equate a minority feeling that the majority's religious symbols, which they have to face in a private context all the time, have made the leap to being given official sanction.

That is something very different from hating Christianity, in the same way that a person might not care very much if a person smokes or not, but will care quite a bit if they smoke a few feet from them in a place where smoking is expressly prohibited.

There is no hatred involved if the nonsmoker simply points out that this is not the place for smokers.

Besides trying to characterize the people who filed the suit as Christian haters, you made the perfectly ridiculous assertion that Jews have never been bothered by some of the expressions of Christmas, and indeed were always happy as ducks to take part in them as long as a bone was thrown their way in the form of a few Jewish songs being included in the celebration. Yes, some Jews did decide to go along,and indeed the elevation of the Hanukkah holiday is an expression of that. But not so long ago, Jews were legally and systematically excluded from many things-"Gentlemen's Agreement" and all that-and giving the appearance of going along was a necessity for them.

Ascribing some Jews' new-found willingness to question Christian symbols being included in official capacities is not the result of a minority turning anti-Christian. It is a result of several decades of civil rights legislation making it easier and easier for people to stick up for themselves-something they dared not do in the forties and fifties.

Your picture of American Jews being pleased as Punch to join in the holiday fun and stumbling over themselves to join in the caroling illustrates a complete lack of knowledge of their situation, attitudes and coping mechanisms, combined with an eagerness to condemn those who stand up for their religious identity. Unless it coincides with your own religious identity.

You misstated what I said, mischaracterized my intent, and made up your own scenario so you could attack it. (We call that a straw man). If you would like to discuss what I actually said, I will be happy to do so. Otherwise knock yourself out. Some people enjoy whistling in the wind. (That last statement is opinion based on my personal experience too.)

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

You misstated what I said, mischaracterized my intent, and made up your own scenario so you could attack it.

Baloney. Your intent was to characterize the plaintiff in this case as an oddball with no support from any quarter, and it fact he turned out to be a Jewish person supported by a Jewish organization.

To counter this, you decide to throw up your "personal experience" of having Jewish friends endorsing your side on this, while you ascribe all sorts of nasty personal characteristics to the Jewish plaintiff.

This is not the first time you have brought up "friends" of extremely doubtful existence to try to support your ideas of when minorities have stuck up for themselves too much to suit you.

0 Replies

Yep, and sometimes it almost makes you want to don hip boots.

Foxfyre wrote:

Everybody I know personally wants the defnition of marriage to remain unchanged and that includes my gay friends out of respect for their parents if for no other reason.

Everybody I know personally also has no problems with contractual relationships forming family units by any others as well.

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1348765#1348765

0 Replies

And neither KW nor Mesquite have a clue who I know or what I know about them. It is really a pity though that neither of you have any thoughts or opinions of your own (and possibly no friends either) and spend your time on these boards writing ad hominems instead of furthering a discussion on the topic.

0 Replies

edit

0 Replies

Good for Arizona. I favor the amendments protecting traditional marriage. I object strenuously to any measure that would prohibit providing protection for those who for whatever reason do not wish to marry or cannot marry.

For the same reason I am glad the initiative in South Dakota was defeated. To put some restrictions on abortions is good. To forbid all abortions for virtually any reason is not good.

There are reasonable ways to do these things and unreasonable ways. Both the Arizona and South Dakota initiatives were unreasonable.

0 Replies

You are quick foxfyre. I inadvertently hit submit rather than preview. Let me try it again.

Arizona just narrowly defeated a proposition that read as follows.

Quote:

"To preserve and protect marriage in this state, only a union between one man and one woman shall be valid and recognized as a marriage by this state or its political subdivisions and no legal status for unmarried persons shall be created or recognized by this state or its political subdivisions that is similar to that of marriage."

foxfyre wrote:

And neither KW nor Mesquite have a clue who I know or what I know about them. It is really a pity though that neither of you have any thoughts or opinions of your own (and possibly no friends either) and spend your time on these boards writing ad hominems instead of furthering a discussion on the topic.

You post untestable anecdotal evidence that flys in the face of the way 49% of your neighboring state of Arizona voted. I commented on the far fetchedness of that evidence and you say that is an ad hominem? You then proceed to offer your own ad hominem.

foxfyre wrote:

And neither KW nor Mesquite have a clue who I know or what I know about them. It is really a pity though that neither of you have any thoughts or opinions of your own (and possibly no friends either) and spend your time on these boards writing ad hominems instead of furthering a discussion on the topic.

That said I do appreciate your position on the Arizona and South Dakota propositions.

0 Replies

How did my 'anecdotal evidence' in any way differ from anything I have ever said much less said today? My social circle includes people who have said they support traditional marriage. And these same people also support civil unions for those who do not wish to marry for whatever reason. I don't know of a single one who does not support traditional marriage or who does not also support civil unions or who does not also believe these should kept separate.

They are a mixed bag on abortion, however, so I have made no such blanket statement regarding my friends' opinions about that.

I may not have always qualified my statements with the fact that not ALL have expressed an opinion one way or the other on the issue of traditional marriage, but I can honestly say I don't know a single one of them who has said s/he does not want the current definition of marriage to stay intact. I probably should have qualified my statements on that point, but I generally cut people some slack on stuff like that as I prefer not to play the 'gotcha' game in my discussions about anything.

I also think these are issues the ACLU should be staying out of altogether as much as they ought to be staying out of a lot of other issues they stick their noses in for fun and profit.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Everybody I know personally also has no problems with contractual relationships forming family units by any others as well.

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1348765#1348765[/quote]

KW made an observation which I happened to agree with from my own observation. I agreed and showed example.

That was a rather strong statement from authority which would indicate that your entire circle of personal knowns are less conservative on this issue than half of the voters of Arizona.

It sounded like fiction then and sounds like it now. I would cut slack also if it were a slip of the tongue rather than modus operandi.

0 Replies

Fine Mesquite. If you and KW consider it important to the subject to draw assumptions about my motives and/or the way I state things, knock yourself out in personal criticism, innuendo, and suppositions as if you actually knew anything about what you're talking about. Or you are certainly free to ignore my posts that you find so offensive. You will understand if I go back to ignoring your posts, however, as I consider that method of debate to be shallow, immature, unnecessarily combative, generally incorrect, and not at all helpful to further discussion of the subject.

0 Replies

If calling it like it is and demonstrating why is "shallow, immature, unnecessarily combative, generally incorrect" in your world then so be it. You may now have the last word.

0 Replies

Hey Mesquite, don't go away. Foxfyre has all sorts of friends she can refer to.

For instance, here is the warm personal relationship she has with an African American friend....

Foxfyre wrote:

I am a white woman who regularly comes back with 'nigger' everytime my black colleague calls me 'honky' and we laugh and go have coffee.....

Are we actually supposed to believe that this goes on between Foxfyre and her African American colleague?

0 Replies

Good God. Does she call her Jewish friends-- assuming arguendo that some exist-- "kike"? Or do they prefer "Hebe"?

One can only imagine, given this stirring recitation of tolerance, what appellations she hangs on her Asian and Hispanic acquaintances...

0 Replies

blacksmithn wrote:

Good God. Does she call her Jewish friends-- assuming arguendo that some exist-- "kike"? Or do they prefer "Hebe"?

One can only imagine, given this stirring recitation of tolerance, what appellations she hangs on her Asian and Hispanic acquaintances...

You have to go back to the thread and put it in context Smith. This lady was a colleague of mine years ago and we have worked on many projects together and been very close for many years. The quote KW pulled out of context was to illustrate that it is not the words we use, but the context in which we use them. Of course KW is not honest enough to put a quote into context. But I've come to expect less than intellectual honesty from some members.

0 Replies

Ahh, I see. Another erstwhile friend....

0 Replies

blacksmithn wrote:

Ahh, I see. Another erstwhile friend....

Yes, I do have friends, past and present. And many of these have had an influence on my perspective on things. For whatever reason though, a few members seriously resent me bringing any personal references into my posts here. I suppose they don't have any friends and can't understand it. A pity don't you think?

0 Replies

Free speech for me but not for thee. ACLU busted!

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know