[WikiEN-l] Re: Live and Let live? Oh, really?

Fri May 20 18:01:49 UTC 2005

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Robert wrote:
> Alphax writes to me:
> 
>> At present, there is *no* neutral way to represent dates. Let's 
>> just call a spade a spade and not try to make something sound like
>>  something it's not.
> 
> 
> You're very confused.  I am not making any such claim.
> 

IIRC, this whole debate was over whether AD/BC was NPOV or not.

> 
> Alphax writes:
> 
>> If you feel you are being forced to use Christian terminology, why 
>> use the Christian date system at all? CE is still based (albeit 
>> incorrectly) on the birthdate of one Jesus of Nazareth.
> 
> Stop being disingenous.  We all agree that the numeric dating system
>  currently in use has to be the one that is used in all articles.  It
>  is just the Jesus-worshipping honorifics (BC/AD) that some of us 
> object to.  The growing consensus in the academic community is to use
>  religion-neutral terms such as BCE/CE.
> 

And some of us object to the arrogant attitude that the time period aka.
AD is common to anyone but Christians, when clearly it is not. It just
happens to be the dating system used by most of the world. Renaming it
"Common Era", ie. removing the only name which has any significance -
Anno Domini - is as bad as Holocaust denial.

Heres somthing that everyone should read - the Anno Domini article:

"*Anno Domini* (Latin: "In the year of the Lord"), or more completely
*Anno Domini Nostri Jesu Christi* ("in the year of our Lord Jesus
Christ"), commonly abbreviated *AD* or *A.D.*, is the designation used
to number years in the dominant *Christian Era* in the world today....
The Christian Era is the only system in everyday use in the Western
World, and the main system for commercial and scientific use in the rest
of the world. In academic historical and archaeological circles,
particularly in the United States, the same epoch is sometimes referred
to as the Common Era (CE) and the BC period as Before the Common Era (BCE)."

> 
> Again, stop pretending that all members of this list are illiterate.
>  We understand fully how Protestant Chrisitan fundamentalists define
>  this term.
> 

I'm interested to hear how *you* define fundamentalist. If you take it
to mean someone who actually believes in what they say, as opposed to
someone who just says things without meaning it, then you are worth less
than a grain of sand, for even a grain of sand will follow logic.

> 
>> You have heard of Freedom of Religion?
> 
> Yes, and please stop making such bizarre implications.  No one is 
> preventing Christians (or Muslims or Jews) from having their own 
> theology, from having their own beliefs, from worshipping in their 
> own houses of worship, or from following their own religious 
> practices.
> 

In this case, they *are* following their own religious practices - to go
and make disciples.

> Freedom of religion, however, prevents people from one religion from
>  harassing people from another religion. US law prohibits people from
>  harassing others with this kind of religious proselytization.  (In 
> fact, I already have been notified that if I choose to bring a case 
> against the people I referred to, I will almost certainly win.  I am 
> trying to find a non-legal way to do deal with them.  They do think 
> that all Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and agnostics 
> are damned to hell, and they are making difficult to work where I am 
> an employee.)
> 

I thought wearing a t-shirt would be covered by Freedom of Speech.

> You seem to imagine that "Freedom of religion" actually means 
> "Freedom for religious fundamentalists to create a hostile workplace
>  environment", and that "Non fundamentalists have no rights at all."

How is their expression of faith creating a hostile workplace
environment? You feel offended? Maybe that's because what they are
saying is true, you know it, and the truth hurts? Again, I am hesistant
to discuss fundamentalism with you, but you have the same rights as the
people who you claim to be offended by do.

> You worldview is the same as that of religious dictators.

Based on what? I don't advocate the kidnapping and torture of people who
don't agree with me.

> You also seem ignorant (in the literal sense of the term) of US law.
> 

In that you are correct; I don't live in the US, so I have no reason to
know what US law is. The concepts of Freedom of Speech and Religion I
speak of are like the concept of Free as in Freedom.

> 
>> We live in a society that has seen the marginalisation, desecration
>>  and humilitation of Jesus Christ.
> 
> Are you joking, or trying to start a holy war against all 
> non-fundamentalist Christians?

Well, it's the truth. As of, oh, now, I am being persecuted for speaking
out about this. And no, I don't believe in holy war, and I still don't
know what you mean by fundamentalist.

> It is enraged fundamentalists like you who start inquisitions, 
> crusades and jihads.

Luckily for you, you are mistaken.

> I hope other Wiki-En editors are keeping a close eye on your 
> submissions.
> 

Now why would that be?

- --
Alphax
GnuPG key: 0xF874C613 - http://tinyurl.com/8mpg9
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
There are two kinds of people: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,'
and those to whom God says, 'All right, then, have it your way.' - C. S.
Lewis
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFCjiYN/RxM5Ph0xhMRAh3OAJwPGax7bos8RjET4BJNbQ5q66jJvgCfU12Z
CzoW/SjHLEVJnNGKkGsvtv4=
=TwTo
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----