Religion's role

[CWSmith]

It's happened. My dad got regular poison pen letters , occasionally got this or that event picketed . .. by members of other churches who felt his stands on things were the work of the devil.

Really.

There is an enormous difference between a picket line and threats in any form. Threats should not be tolerated and I whole heartedly recommend going to the police when a disagreement turns into a threat. Poison pen letters, especially when unsigned, are the work of cowards and should not be tolerated within a society of laws. But that's not what John is complaining about.

[John Smith]

You're not answering my question, John.

My question is this: if the Post Office had hired this guy, and then after a bit of time in the job he said "I can't work on Saturdays. I'll be kicked off the Olympic team if I miss Saturday practices" ... would your workplace have sought some way to accommodate him?

My guess is that your union and the management team would have worked something out. Collectively you'd have felt that it was a "good thing" to support America's Olympic efforts, and the commitment of the elite athlete. Even though there'd have been precisely the same negative impact on other staff.

My guess is also that you'd have felt pleased in finding a workaround which accommodated him, rather than irritated that you had to but were prevented from discrimination by a statute or policy.

I represented the union.
There would have been NO contractual obligation for management to oblige this employee. This would be no different than an employee holding a second job on Saturdays.

Let me say, as Chief Steward I often fought for, and got, relief for employees who had some form of temporary problem. We put language in our local agreement to do so. The most extreme case was a young man who's wife left him with two young children. He needed a schedule change until he could get sufficient help for his two kids.

The religious thing would be a permanent situation for as long as the man worked there. They had to hire him, and we would have had to have found a way, had he stayed, to meet his needs. How we could have done that without trampling on the rights and needs of others would have been the question.

Him being off every Saturday would make it more difficult for anyone else to get a Saturday off.

There is no way this can be construed that his beliefs don't/wouldn't impact people who believe differently.

My question is: Why should others suffer for his beliefs?

[John Smith]

Apparently this is the "force" that John says religious people are using against him -- they are "forcing" him to accomodate them. Which is unjust, as he does not force them to accomodate him. Except by not speaking of certain things, within his hearing. They shall not intrude into his consciousness.

You've obviously not read my posts.

[John Smith]

John, they are making a public statement of their opinion, which is something that you and everyone else is entitled to do. If they are not directly limiting your access to the film, then you have nothing to complain about.

Really, John, you come off like a coward in this discussion. If you aren't adult enough to walk past a bunch of picketers, then you really should not be seeing films of a sexual nature.

I would walk through the picket line. My question is one of why there is a picket line. If you don't want to see a film, no one forces you to. WHY would you make such efforts to get others not to?

[John Smith]

Yes, I would say the same thing. You see, I wear big-boy pants and I can walk past people who disagree with me to do what I think is right.

No, I don't think it would discourage people unless an employer illegally linked their attendance to their employment, but then that's what lawyers are for.

And then like I said, I would be fine with picketers. Most people would view it as an opportunity to educate, but like I said I wear my big-boy pants.

Congratulations on your big boy pants. Not everyone is you. SOME are intimidated by such picket lines. Picket lines are there to intimidate. Not all will be intimidated, but some will. If the purpose is not to discourage people from entering the movie, or the church, what is their purpose?

[John Smith]

There is an enormous difference between a picket line and threats in any form. Threats should not be tolerated and I whole heartedly recommend going to the police when a disagreement turns into a threat. Poison pen letters, especially when unsigned, are the work of cowards and should not be tolerated within a society of laws. But that's not what John is complaining about.

Those take the same concept to different levels. My question remains: if you don't like a film or a church, why not simply don't go into them? Why would you feel compelled to do more than that?

[CWSmith]

I would walk through the picket line. My question is one of why there is a picket line. If you don't want to see a film, no one forces you to. WHY would you make such efforts to get others not to?

Because it is their constitutional right to express their mind and attempt to change public opinion.

Look, John, is there nothing you would picket? Would you picket capital punishment? Would you picket police violence? Would you picket racial injustice? You wouldn't be much of a man if you would not. So what you are really saying is, "They should not have the right to picket their views while I have the right to picket mine!" That's not the way it works.

Now, if you have something important to complain about, by all means have at it. For the record, you do not have the right to decide what other people think, but you do have the right to engage in conversation to try to change their mind. That's what a picket line is.

[John Smith]

Because it is their constitutional right to express their mind and attempt to change public opinion.

Look, John, is there nothing you would picket? Would you picket capital punishment? Would you picket police violence? Would you picket racial injustice? You wouldn't be much of a man if you would not. So what you are really saying is, "They should not have the right to picket their views while I have the right to picket mine!" That's not the way it works.

Now, if you have something important to complain about, by all means have at it. For the record, you do not have the right to decide what other people think, but you do have the right to engage in conversation to try to change their mind. That's what a picket line is.

I may picket for some things, but NEVER based on taste or religion. Picketing against violence, which actually harms people, is an entirely different thing. Picketing for higher wages is not the same as picking to get a film out of a theater.

[CWSmith]

I may picket for some things, but NEVER based on taste or religion.

That is your choice. Others choose differently.

John, I don't know what awful trauma you experienced, but your complaints rob others of their constitutional rights. Whether I agree with them or not, I will defend their right to be wrong and your right to ignore them. If that's not enough for you, then you need to get yourself elected dictator for life and have at it. Until then, the world will not be the way you want it to be and I think we all need to be grateful for that.

[David G]

That is your choice. Others choose differently.

John, I don't know what awful trauma you experienced, but your complaints rob others of their constitutional rights. Whether I agree with them or not, I will defend their right to be wrong and your right to ignore them. If that's not enough for you, then you need to get yourself elected dictator for life and have at it. Until then, the world will not be the way you want it to be and I think we all need to be grateful for that.

I'm certainly grateful...

[Bobcat]

That is your choice. Others choose differently.

John, I don't know what awful trauma you experienced, but your complaints rob others of their constitutional rights. Whether I agree with them or not, I will defend their right to be wrong and your right to ignore them. If that's not enough for you, then you need to get yourself elected dictator for life and have at it. Until then, the world will not be the way you want it to be and I think we all need to be grateful for that.

Well said.

[Breakaway]

Those take the same concept to different levels. My question remains: if you don't like a film or a church, why not simply don't go into them? Why would you feel compelled to do more than that?

Because you believe in something. Because you care about others.
Because you would like to see change.


Literally, a picketer is STANDING FOR something.

Kevin


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[David G]

Because you believe in something. Because you care about others.
Because you would like to see change.


Literally, a picketer is STANDING FOR something.

Kevin


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Well said.

And because you think it's important.

[Breakaway]

I may picket for some things, but NEVER based on taste or religion. Picketing against violence, which actually harms people, is an entirely different thing. Picketing for higher wages is not the same as picking to get a film out of a theater.

To YOU.
In YOUR opinion.
You expect others to see things your way.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[John Smith]

Because you believe in something. Because you care about others.
Because you would like to see change.


Literally, a picketer is STANDING FOR something.

Kevin


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

One can stand for something in many ways. For many things. Picketing a film (you've likely not seen) for religious reasons is not a good example. Picketing for higher wages, picketing for safer working conditions, picketing to get a stop light at a dangerous intersection, and other causes are not the same as censorship.

Picketers don't stand FOR something. They picket against wages being too low, working condition being unsafe, or that corner being too dangerous. Why would you picket against a movie you've not seen, a book you've not read, or either you have read and didn't like?

Imagine if your church was picketed by people of no faith who thought your religion was foolish, or people of other faiths believing theirs was the 'right' faith and yours 'wrong'.

Look at the list of books being banned in parts of this country and tell me you don't think this is getting out of hand.

[Breakaway]

One can stand for something in many ways. For many things. Picketing a film (you've likely not seen) for religious reasons is not a good example. Picketing for higher wages, picketing for safer working conditions, picketing to get a stop light at a dangerous intersection, and other causes are not the same as censorship.

Picketers don't stand FOR something. They picket against wages being too low, working condition being unsafe, or that corner being too dangerous. Why would you picket against a movie you've not seen, a book you've not read, or either you have read and didn't like?

Imagine if your church was picketed by people of no faith who thought your religion was foolish, or people of other faiths believing theirs was the 'right' faith and yours 'wrong'.

Look at the list of books being banned in parts of this country and tell me you don't think this is getting out of hand.

Equating picketing with censorship is arguing in bad faith, John. The two are not at all the same.

Secondly, money and wages and stoplights are important to many people, I agree. But, we cannot apply our worldview to others. We each think our way is the right way. Nonetheless, others must be free to think another way

For the record, though raised Catholic, I am not religious and practice no faith. Picketers at a church are, to me, as reasonable protesters anywhere else. Again, why people believe something is irrelevant to their right to express it, within the bounds of the law.

Kevin


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[John Smith]

Equating picketing with censorship is arguing in bad faith, John. The two are not at all the same.

Secondly, money and wages and stoplights are important to many people, I agree. But, we cannot apply our worldview to others. We each think our way is the right way. Nonetheless, others must be free to think another way

For the record, though raised Catholic, I am not religious and practice no faith. Picketers at a church are, to me, as reasonable protesters anywhere else. Again, why people believe something is irrelevant to their right to express it, within the bounds of the law.

Kevin


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Let me ask a very simple question. What, exactly, are those picketing a theater that no one is forcing them to go into picketing for? They want to ban a movie they've not seen. Or do you believe they've seen it? How about banning books they've not read?

Or, in today's lingo being solidly against 'woke' even when they can't define it?

I can see picketing for higher wages, safer working conditions, and that sort of thing. Picketing a movie theater is an effort at censorship, no?

[WI-Tom]

Let me ask a very simple question. What, exactly, are those picketing a theater that no one is forcing them to go into picketing for? They want to ban a movie they've not seen. Or do you believe they've seen it? How about banning books they've not read?

Probably because they believe that books and films are dangerous, because they have the power to change our culture in ways they do not approve. For example, violent movies could be seen as making violence more acceptable, and de-sensitizing people to the effects of violence.

I can understand the logic somewhat. Maybe more than somewhat.

In the U.S., the danger of our emphasis on individual freedoms and our aversion to censorship or restrictions on speech is that it perversely allows for people to act in ways that damage the society and democratic ideals that our laws are supposed to protect.

We idolize absolute freedom, and ignore things like hate speech because "It's our right!" Well, why should people have the right to damage the fundamental concept that everyone deserves to be accepted as a full member of society through speech and actions that make many people understand full well they are NOT accorded the status and protections of full citizenship?

Tom

[Breakaway]

Let me ask a very simple question. What, exactly, are those picketing a theater that no one is forcing them to go into picketing for? They want to ban a movie they've not seen. Or do you believe they've seen it? How about banning books they've not read?
?

People asking for ( not forcing) a ban on a movie they have not seen is kind of like people criticizing religion when they have not practiced it, isnt it?

Kevin

[Dikhaut]

I can see picketing for higher wages, safer working conditions, and that sort of thing. Picketing a movie theater is an effort at censorship, no?

So in your mind picketing a movie theater is censorship but not allowing them to picket is not censorship?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[John Smith]

Probably because they believe that books and films are dangerous, because they have the power to change our culture in ways they do not approve. For example, violent movies could be seen as making violence more acceptable, and de-sensitizing people to the effects of violence.

I can understand the logic somewhat. Maybe more than somewhat.

In the U.S., the danger of our emphasis on individual freedoms and our aversion to censorship or restrictions on speech is that it perversely allows for people to act in ways that damage the society and democratic ideals that our laws are supposed to protect.

We idolize absolute freedom, and ignore things like hate speech because "It's our right!" Well, why should people have the right to damage the fundamental concept that everyone deserves to be accepted as a full member of society through speech and actions that make many people understand full well they are NOT accorded the status and protections of full citizenship?

Tom

To form such an opinion, would they not have to have seen the film or read the book?

My generation grew up with cap pistols and westerns. Should those all have been banned?

[John Smith]

People asking for ( not forcing) a ban on a movie they have not seen is kind of like people criticizing religion when they have not practiced it, isnt it?

Kevin

Not sure I follow you. I'm not arguing against religions. I respect your right to your religion. I ask you respect the rights of those who believe differently.

I would no more prevent you from going into your church, for example, than I'd want you to force me to go into your church.

Things put into place as laws/regulations based on preventing harm to people are one thing. Laws/regulations based upon religious beliefs are another.

[John Smith]

So in your mind picketing a movie theater is censorship but not allowing them to picket is not censorship?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

In my mind picketing is an action designed for the purpose of cutting down viewership of a film. A film they have not seen. What purpose would this picket line serve other than to discourage others from seeing the film shown? Why is it any of their business what movie someone else sees?

This is an act based simply on taste/religion. I see that as overstepping.

I don't feel as though I have ANY RIGHT to interfere with what films you see. Or what books you read. Obviously you and others disagree. In a 'free' society, and adult should have the right to see whatever film he wishes. He cannot have that 'right' if others have the right to intimidate him or block him. Our elected people make laws which may dictate some of this stuff. The church is not the law.

Again, what happened to just not buying a ticket to a movie you'd rather not see? The impact of a picket line, I'd suggest, is determined by the number of people who participate. A few picketers may draw laughter. A few more likely draw some anger. Many may bring physical violence and cops. Enough may close the theater.

All because you don't like a movie you've not seen but are convinced it violates your beliefs?

[TomF]

How would you feel about people picketing a neo-Nazi rally? It may or may not be a safe place to protest, but still.

Presumably the protesters would be disputing the content of the neo-Nazi message, believing it to be corrosive tovthe pluralist and tolerant norms of social life and behavior we claim to value, and physically dangerous to many individuals. That is, the protest is intended to metaphorically fight for hearts and minds, and against moral regression.

What if you felt similarly about how violence is portrayed in movies? Or about how different races or sexual orientations are portrayed? What if you felt similarly about persistent gaps in representation on screen, with Caucasians for instance always portraying Asian or Arab or native North American characters, wearing makeup? Should people not have a right to picketing to see an Asian play an Asian, or a gay man portray a hero who happens also to be openly gay?

All of these things have prompted picketing outside theaters in my lifetime. And yes, some folks -mostly Conservative people from a few branches of the Christian churches, have picketed about sex, and the portrayal of Jesus, and sometimes about movies about exorcism.

[WI-Tom]

To form such an opinion, would they not have to have seen the film or read the book?

You've never formed an opinion of a movie or book before experiencing it yourself? Read a review? Gotten a sense of the reaction from the public? Do you need to know what Quentin Tarantino's next film will be about before you form an opinion about it?

My generation grew up with cap pistols and westerns. Should those all have been banned?

It's an interesting question. Who is trying to ban them? (Schools have very little tolerance for toy guns, or even pretending to have a gun and "shooting" people at recess).

As for Westerns, I wouldn't ban them. But it would be good to think critically about them. To understand how the indigenous POV is warped or ignored entirely. To understand how the glorification of violence as problem-solving, and the myth of the rugged individualist, have infected our nation. A bit of deconstruction. Clint Eastwood's Unforgiven does a bit of that.

I'm sympathetic to your thinking on these issues. But, one thing to remember is that our nation doesn't promise that other people can't confront us about our behavior and beliefs. It doesn't even promise freedom from censorship, no matter how much you seem to want to see it that way.

What our nation promises is freedom from government censorship.

That's a very different thing.

Tom

[WI-Tom]

In my mind picketing is an action designed for the purpose of cutting down viewership of a film. A film they have not seen. What purpose would this picket line serve other than to discourage others from seeing the film shown? Why is it any of their business what movie someone else sees?

What if people want to see white performers in blackface make-up? Should we stand aside and courteously let them go to those shows and movies? Or should we, maybe, picket?

What if a group, based on psychological research suggesting that violent movies desensitize children to violence, decides that's important enough that they don't want a violent movie playing in town, so they picket? That's a cultural objection, not a religious one. Can they picket?

I'm more or less with you, John. But I understand that others might see more of a threat to some art than I do. And that their objections might be sincere, and non-religious. And that they might even be right about the harm some of this stuff does.

And anyway, they have constitutional rights to make their opinions known. What they do NOT have the right to do, as you and I have pointed out repeatedly, is to impose their religious beliefs on others through legislation. But picketing does not violate that prohibition.

Tom

[skuthorp]

I would suggest, knowing what we do about human behaviour, that picketing and the subsequent publicity are just the thing to make a 3rd rate production sell out.
It may even pay the producers to fund a demonstration……….

[Osborne Russell]

He cannot have that 'right' if others have the right to intimidate him or block him.

They don't. Nobody said they did. Several have said they don't. You are belaboring an error.

It is you that insists that they have the right, because that's the battle you want to fight. It was over several centuries ago. But if you insist on going back over it, you are obliged where you believe this right originates -- to intimidate or block you -- and give examples of its application.

If you're walking up to buy a ticket, and some guy says "Don't see this movie!" and you feel intimidated to the extent that you advocate state action against him, then you want an amount of government that has been proven to be harmful if not disastrous. I could claim with greater validity that you're intimidating me.

[CWSmith]

What if people want to see white performers in blackface make-up? Should we stand aside and courteously let them go to those shows and movies? Or should we, maybe, picket?

Tom

I'm 67 and when I was a teenager there was actually a 1-night, blackface minstrel show just a block from my home. The memory of that is still with me and I think of it whenever I think of people like Limbaugh who could make ugly jokes that were laughed at and repeated by men who thought they were very right. Needless to say, I knew some of the men in that show...

[David G]

They don't. Nobody said they did. Several have said they don't. You are belaboring an error.

It is you that insists that they have the right, because that's the battle you want to fight. It was over several centuries ago. But if you insist on going back over it, you are obliged where you believe this right originates -- to intimidate or block you -- and give examples of its application.

If you're walking up to buy a ticket, and some guy says "Don't see this movie!" and you feel intimidated to the extent that you advocate state action against him, then you want an amount of government that has been proven to be harmful if not disastrous. I could claim with greater validity that you're intimidating me.

Just so.

[TomF]

https://twitter.com/johnpavlovitz/st...149295617?s=20

[CWSmith]

^ I could not agree more. There is so much that I want to say, but I can't get control of my emotions or express my disappointment in the "conservative" element within American Christianity.

[Osborne Russell]

^ I could not agree more. There is so much that I want to say, but I can't get control of my emotions or express my disappointment in the "conservative" element within American Christianity.

By their works shall ye know these mother F ers.

[Osborne Russell]

Trump makes expressions of faith, to the faithful. Don't disparage an expression of faith.

Uh huh. Here, hold my beer.

[John Smith]

To find another way to say what I'm trying to say: A parent has the right to monitor the books his/her child may read, but do they have the right to do so for the children of others?