When ever someone tries to use Leviticus to justify their bigotry, I find it useful to point them to this letter:BKM said:It ain't just the south, either. My local newspaper always prints some pretty scary letters. One just came out quoting all the usual Leviticus verses and advocating "the gays" be expelled.
OH. MY. GOD! Thanks. lol.AubieTurtle said:
thanks for the corrections. I expected to be wrong anyway :-DBKM said:Ah, but you are totally wrong, boiker. For generations, Southerners (and South Africans) in particular used a particular interpretation of the Bible to justify racism. After all, aren't persons of African descent the "Sons of Ham" and meant ot be "hewers of wood."
I also disagree with your other point. That you can use a religious prejudice against a population. That violates, in my eyes, the establishment clause.
It ain't just the south, either. My local newspaper always prints some pretty scary letters. One just came out quoting all the usual Leviticus verses and advocating "the gays" be expelled.
I think it's just the opposite. Europe has become so secular because so many of its religious fundamentalists/zealots (at least the Catholic and Protestant ones) left there to worship freely in the good ol' US of A.Duke Of Dystopia said:I theorize that these people are the ultimate reason that most of Europe has become so secular. With thier past history of ctholic/protestant religious violence, they learned where following a rigid spiritual path as a whole leads.
I'm picking up on BKM's point -- it's way too simplistic to blame the South as the only part of this nation to express its bigotry in any way. There is not one square inch of America that has been a bigotry-free zone, ever. Not everyone in America is a bigot. But the bigots are everywhere in America.Repo Man said:...and people in the South wonder why the rest of the country thinks they are a bunch of ignorant backwater hicks. Way to perpetuate the stereotype.
Both now illegal, I might add.pete-rock said:Parts of the nation just resorted to extra-legal or outright illegal methods to dominate -- redlining and restricted deed covenants come to mind.
That's got to be it. Lots of European countries underwent a more or less constant state of religious warfare following the reformation right up into the late 17th/early 18th century. Putting this into historical context you understand why the founding fathers of the US were so eager to form a secular society (and they were - says so on the back of a one dollar bill). Lots of American colonists were immigrants or 1st or 2nd generation and the whole religious war thing was fresh in their minds. We Americans seem to have forgotten (perhaps willfully) much about the origins of our nation.Duke Of Dystopia said:I theorize that these people are the ultimate reason that most of Europe has become so secular. With thier past history of ctholic/protestant religious violence, they learned where following a rigid spiritual path as a whole leads.
Loved that letter. I've long believed that the Bible is not the word of God, but rather man's word about God. A lot of the "do not"s in the Bible seem to be self-serving.AubieTurtle said:When ever someone tries to use Leviticus to justify their bigotry, I find it useful to point them to this letter:
[It shows just how much people like to cherry pick their beliefs from the bible.
The Old Testament is part of the Jewish Torah, along with much of the Christian Denominations is based on Jewish Teachings. (Such as the last supper, was that pass over meal and such)PlannerGirl said:Im reading the Jewish version of the bible-subtle diffrences that I like much better a a woman ;-)
Never mind 613 comandments!
I don't think it's particularly unique to southern US Christianity but yeah, Fundamentalism of any religious persuasion damages society on a number of levels.... :-\FueledByRamen said:Anyway, I think that that is the major problem with southern US Christianity is the literal interpretation of the Bible (well, and the literallness taken with anything that leads to ignorance in politics, etc.)
Maybe Baptists or evangelicals. I was raised Episcopalian in the south, and I can assure you that they do not literally interpret the Bible. Christianity encompasses many, many churches and they do not all espouse such narrow-mindedness.FueledByRamen said:Anyway, I think that that is the major problem with southern US Christianity is the literal interpretation of the Bible (well, and the literallness taken with anything that leads to ignorance in politics, etc.)
What you mean is that I would be de juris chattel instead of de facto chattel. <cackle>BKM said:Exactly what I meant, Michele. Slavery does not always mean the system anathemized in our plantation era. It was quite a bit different.
Of course, if the Bible is the unchanging Word of God, you would be LEGALLY chatel.
Actually, my posts tend to be longer when I take LESS time: I am a visual-spatial thinker and it takes less effort to do a 'brain dump' than to craft a well-written and succinct ...yadda yadda.pete-rock said:Off-topic:
MZ, you make great comments. But how DO you find the time to write such long posts?
My mom was born and raised in Germany. She was born in the 1930's and was a little girl during WWII and its aftermath. My dad fought in WWII when he was 17. And I am all too familiar with the psychological studies they did, trying to "prove" that only psycho Germans could be made into such monsters -- and found that most people can be made to do terrible things if you start small and escalate it. I am always keenly aware of the danger of "the slippery slope" and I hold myself to very high ethics because of it.JNA said:? does this classic quote by Martin Niemoller apply-
They came first for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up.
Exactly. Not to say that it's right, but it will continue to exist. It's a part of human nature.Rumpy Tunanator said:Regardless of what year we are living in or what the future holds, the fact will always remain that people will hate other people, whether because of religious beliefs, race, ethnicity, sexual preference, etc.. Its been going on since the dawn of civilization and will probaly continue till the demise of the human race.
No. But, one could easily argue that the Northern Working Class of the pre-Civil War era was, if anything, treated worse than some slaves.otterpop said:Seems awfully odd that I should have to defend the belief that slavery is a really bad thing. While I do understand the conjecture that slavery of old was different than slavery of the colonial and early years of our Republic, I cannot see the "context" argument. How are we to know that slavery of old was not much, much worse. I doubt the slaves who toiled building the pyramids thought forced labor was a great and wonderful thing. Nor do I beleive the Christian slaves torn apart by lions in the Coliseum were blessing their servitude.
There is no intent on my part to make you "defend" such a view. I have every intention of escaping my own "chattel" status as a homemaker. I think it is a bad thing. But liberty of the kind we tout in modern America was not really possible hundreds of years ago and is still something which is hard won for individuals in this day and age. Some of the hardest "chains" to break are invisible. Having hewed my way through a number of those, I have had to think long and hard about some of this. I was sharing my thoughts, not suggesting a moral position.otterpop said:Seems awfully odd that I should have to defend the belief that slavery is a really bad thing.
To take a man's or woman's life or liberty is inexcusable, no matter whether the slave's master was cruel or kind. Slaves lived abominable lives. "Context" is an intellectual dodge to assauge societal guilt.
Yeah, verily. Homeschooling is a godsend for me and my kids, in so many ways.BKM said:And, actually, through home-schooling, you have severed one of the chains the site focused on.
The really hard part in the "fight for women's rights" is the fact that a lot of men are NOT the kind of fruitcake you describe and genuinely do not see the consequences of their own subtle personal biases and assumptions about what is "normal". Many of these men would happily do The Right Thing -- IF they knew what it was. But trying to explain it to them can become a huge blow-out, in part because they feel attacked, the hostility towards men of the American Women's Lib movement is an unnecesarrily inflammatory position, these things DO run very deep and it can be a genuine identity crisis for a man to have it pointed out to him that X is really gender bias and keeps women in a chattel position, etc. Sigh.BKM said:Thank God my sister never married the nutcase I called "The Frugal Monk." You know the kind-drive around town to save 5 cents per gallon on gasoline.
So true Downtown......in upstate, if a guy doesn't wear a baseball cap, jeans and tee-shirts.... 24/7 he is could be considered gay. Doesn't take much. Not many metrosexuals up there!!Downtown said:My personal experience is that most rural locales, Southern or otherwise, tend to be hotbeds of ignorance and intolerance. My brother was harrassed in our rural upstate ny high school on a weekly basis on just the perception that he was gay (he hadn't yet outed even to himself yet).