b3ta.com qotw
You are not logged in. Login or Signup
Home » Question of the Week » Political Correctness Gone Mad » Post 102560 | Search
This is a question Political Correctness Gone Mad

Freddy Woo writes: "I once worked on an animation to help highlight the issues homeless people face in winter. The client was happy with the work, then a note came back that the ethnic mix of the characters were wrong. These were cartoon characters. They weren't meant to be ethnically anything, but we were forced to make one of them brown, at the cost of about 10k to the charity. This is how your donations are spent. Wisely as you can see."

How has PC affected you? (Please add your own tales - not five-year-old news stories cut-and-pasted from other websites)

(, Thu 22 Nov 2007, 10:20)
Pages: Latest, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, ... 1

« Go Back

I'm a Christian.
Apparently this offends people. Without even knowing me, people can hear that phrase about me and immediately decide I'm objectionable, yet for some reason this doesn't count in their heads as prejudice or discrimination.

Just mentioning that I'm one of yer actual born-again happy-clappy God-botherers, who goes to church on (some) Sundays and does that praying thing sometimes, is enough to set most people off.

Yes, some of my lot believe in 7-day creation a few thousand years ago*.

Yes, some of my lot don't believe in sex before marriage**.

Yes, some of my lot don't believe in sex with people the same sex***.

Yes, there are a lunatic few who get the placards out at Jerry Springer The Opera, abortion clinics, section 28, Harry Potter book launches (wtf?) and God knows where else you find a few militant fools.

But the point is, none of that matters. The clue's in the name. It's not about any of that lot. The thing that makes me (or any of my lot) a Christian is that Christ business. Believing that that Jesus bloke, that a bunch of historians wrote of about 200 years ago, was more than a "nice man" or a "good teacher" or a "troublemaker" or "political activist" or whatever who upset a few people and got nailed to a cross, how sad; believing that he actually meant what he said. The rest is all cultural.

It's not about trying to be nice or that ridiculously patronising phrase "christian values" - don't get me started on all that - if you're not going to acknowledge there was a bloke who professed to be the Christ behind it all, don't think that just trying to be nice to people is "christian" any more than it's "ghandian", "guevarian" or "Jimmy Saville-ian".

It's not about Christmas or Easter (particularly). Jesus wasn't born in the middle of winter, nor is it possible he got nailed to a cross on the first full moon after the vernal equinox. Most of my lot wouldn't care if you swapped them round, changed the dates or just combined the two and called them Santa's Winterval Excess of Rampant Consumerism.

But don't patronise me. If you haven't studied it, if you haven't thought a bit about it, don't assume you know more about it than me. Any more than I'd presume to say to a Muslim, "oh yeah, but that Muhammad bloke, right, he wasn't really all that, he lived in a cave and slept with his aunt, didn't he? I read that in the Ramadan Special in the Mail..."

I don't care what you say about my beliefs. Because they're my beliefs. I don't think you should care and I don't think I've got any right to be offended by what you think.

I don't think you should be forced to believe the same thing any more than I should be forced not to believe them. I've had a bit of a think about it, I still question everything, I like to debate it and I know what I believe. Don't lump me in with a whole load of people with no muscles in their arms who wear sandals, grow beards and ring bells. It's not about them and it's not about me. As I said, the clue's in the name.

Length? Might have ranted there a bit...

...and if you don't click on "I like this" it means you're a politically correct bigot. ;)

EDIT: forgot to add the stars, sorry -

* I'm not convinced either way. Both poles of the argument seem to rely on a bit of a leap of faith of some sort, and I don't think in the end it matters too much.

** Like I said, the rest is cultural. Look at a bunch of repressed twenty-somethings trying not to acknowledge that they have genitals or feelings about them and compare them with a bunch of twenty somethings sticking their genitals in or around anything that moves, and I reckon you'll find something silly about both of them. Said Jesus bloke didn't say "wait until you get married to have sex," so I didn't.

*** I don't think the accumulated cultural prejudices of generations of church-goers should have any influence here. For the record, I don't much fancy the cock. Some of my male friends do. Said Jesus bloke said nothing on the matter, and it certainly doesn't bother me. Or them.
(, Sat 24 Nov 2007, 9:24, 26 replies)
It doesn't offend most people
they just feel a little sorry for you, going through life with a delusion as the central tenant for your existence.

My family are Wee Frees - the Shock Troops of the church - and hence I despise religion.

I don't mind Christians, individually, at all but I'd just wish they'd fuck off out of government & education and every other arena of public life, and keep their (ever so well meaning) deceit to themselves.
(, Sat 24 Nov 2007, 10:08, closed)
In My first year of University...
..I shared a room with a Lad called John: quite litterally the son of a preacher-man. He was a no-sex-before-marriage flavour of god-botherer, and damned sound bloke. (read about hom here) b3ta.com/questions/experts/post34393

I was ub-educated in his flavour of church, wo was surprised to see him in a pub 2 hours after he'd "gone to worship"... turns out they had a ball for an hour, then went to the pub and had a good old social time and got Drunk.

While I have no truck with religon, so long as it's not foisted upon me -or used as justification to threaten my life or others - then I'm cool with it.

(, Sat 24 Nov 2007, 10:46, closed)
You're not convinced either way about evolution?
Then go here: www.talkorigins.org/

And convince yourself. Before people laugh and point in the street and call you a moron.
(, Sat 24 Nov 2007, 13:15, closed)
cheers timewasterboy
I hadn't seen that site before, although I'd heard of the newsgroup. I don't mean "I haven't really thought about it" - I've studied science as long as I've been in education and I've got a degree in Physiology - I mean, I haven't found conclusive proof for one side or the other. As I said, both poles take a certain leap of faith, made easier but no less (or more) scientific by one's worldview.

And aw, thanks RingOfFire for proving my point. Your patronising sympathy really means a lot to a pathetic individual like me. If only I had all the answers like you.
(, Sat 24 Nov 2007, 18:51, closed)
I think the one thing missing here
Which a lot of atheists (such as Richard Dawkins) seem to miss out is the idea of live and let live. You don't have to believe in something, you speak vehemently against it in fact. It doesn't give you permission to be a patronising little cunt. So, live and let live. Most Christians are content to let people live their lives, it would be nice if others could learn that self-same lesson.
(, Sat 24 Nov 2007, 19:31, closed)
So you're saying "live and let live", however you're deciding you need to force me to "live and let live."

Live and let live, piston_bloke.
(, Sat 24 Nov 2007, 23:50, closed)
if you read piston's last comment again - but this time *without* looking for a fight - you'll see that he's asying that a vast bunch of Atheists (like Richard Dawkins) are the ones guilty of speaking out and tellnig others how wrong they are.. and that it's the Chistians and what-not who are the ones that are heppier to live and let live.

He's not telling you what to do!!

Dawkins did however mention a nice point... to some extent we're all atheists: mostly people only believe in one god.. but dismiss the others. "When you manage to understand why you deny the existance of *other* gods, then you will understand why I dismiss yours"

To sum up... We can't ALL be right =)
(, Sun 25 Nov 2007, 11:25, closed)
Humpty, you're right; piston_bloke, I'm sorry.

I like the sound of Dawkins' point, however it's not a practically defensible one. To extrapolate slightly, he's saying that each belief system chooses one outlook and excludes all the others, which is why he won't choose one of those belief systems.

However, atheism itself is a belief system of sorts: a belief in the non-existence of a god or gods; merely a belief because if it could be conclusively proved then nobody could question it.

So what he's saying is basically he observes a load of mutually exclusive belief systems and has chosen his own, which also turns out to be a belief system which denies all others.

By his argument, to the same extent we're also all theists.
(, Sun 25 Nov 2007, 13:29, closed)
Richard Dawkins...
said in one of his earlier books

"Publishers should correct the misapprehension that a scholar's authority in one field implies authority in another. And as long as that misapprehension exists, distinguished scholars should resist the temptation to abuse it."

Bloody good scientist - but what a hypocritical twat.
(, Sun 25 Nov 2007, 16:48, closed)
"we're all theists"
You'd be right apart from one weeny thing ;o) The definition of theist: specifically the belief in a god.

1. the belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation (distinguished from deism).
2. belief in the existence of a god or gods (opposed to atheism).

Dawkins, myself and other Atheists believe that there is no such thing as a god; this belief doesn't make us "thesits" in any way.
(, Sun 25 Nov 2007, 16:57, closed)
without repeating my previous post, as much as Dawkins' argument makes me an atheist, my side of the argument makes him a theist.

It couldn't possibly be said that in any way I believe "that there is no such thing as a god" (thus in Darwin's argument we all deny the existence of _some_ other god or gods in a way) and via my argument Dawkins holds some sort of belief system (his atheism is his "god", in the same loosely interpretative way).

But that's pretty much just semantics...
(, Sun 25 Nov 2007, 21:36, closed)
Live and let live
As someone said (can't be bothered to click 'Back' and remind myself who), the problem with the Live and let live philosophy is that a substantial number of religious people of all denominations aren't prepared to reciprocate. Also, his point is that if there *is* no God, then a large number of children are being brough up to believe lies - and certainly in this country (UK) it's almost impossible to choose an atheist upbringing for your child without home-schooling or forcing them to be excluded from a significant portion of school life. (I'm not just talking about 'religious' schools here - my children go to a standard school with no official offiliation to any church)
As for whoever said Dawkins was a hypocrite for speaking on areas he has no expertise, that's nonsense - Dawkins area of expertise is the origin and development of life on this planet - that sounds like a great qualification for speaking about religion to me. Otherwise, the only people qualified to speak about it are religious people themselves, which kind of biases your arguments! He's only arguing against the factual side of religion anyway - creation myths, the idea of a personal deity who can wreak miracles, etc - not against moral teachings, although he does argue persuasively that we're wrong to assume that moral teachings stem from religion; he argues that religious teachings follow trends in moral values, not the other way round (as with the general shift in most churches today towards better attitudes towards women, homosexuality and other traditional areas of religious bigotry).
(, Mon 26 Nov 2007, 8:12, closed)
had this discussion only last week, for a good 3 hours. I'm surprised personally I held up as an atheist for that long, when faced with 3 comitted christians.

I'm not generalising about all christians here, but these three (one of which is a very close friend) informed me that I can live just the way they do (and I do, by and large, sans God) yet I will not go to heaven because I don't believe, and happily damn me because of that.

Not once did they acknowledge that I live essentially a good life. Sure, I drink and I have sex prior to marriage, but I am not promiscuous, I've never cheated, stolen, or told an outright lie. It was the fact that I don't believe that rendered all that null and void in their eyes, and they told me as such.

Indeed the other two of the three were, in their words, 'extremely promiscuous' prior to finding god, something I have never been, yet this means nothing now because they have apologised and it's all alright now, making them better than myself (their inference).

My view is that I am perfectly capable of looking after myself. If I hurt or offend someone in any way, it is most important to me to be forgiven by the person I hurt or offended. It is way more important than seeking approval from a higher being. I take all of my problems on my own shoulders, any decision is mine to make and consequences are mine to bear.

I am tolerant of all races and creeds. I just wish that some christians would be more tolerant of those like myself. It is a conversation I'd rather not have if I can avoid it. Not for fear, (I stood up to the barrage for 3 hours, hey) but it isn't something I want to talk about. In my experience religion, when meeting a comitted christian, is Question 5, behind Where Do you Live, How Do You Know So-And-So, What Did You Do At University, and What Is Your Job. Then comes Question 5, which provokes the biggest and apparently most important discussion of the evening.

Me, I'd rather talk about football.
(, Mon 26 Nov 2007, 9:55, closed)
Why is it that we shy away from slandering Islam, Judaism etc but feel perfectly free to have a crack at Christianity?

Is it that we feel comfortable with it or that we see a target that won't hit back?
(, Mon 26 Nov 2007, 10:18, closed)
Woo to this.
Personally, I think the people who rant against religion are just scared.

Lots of people who rant against homosexuality are actually repressed homosexuals and scared that they fancy blokes.

Half the people who spend a lot of time ranting about paedophiles are just scared that they are paedophiles because they lech at schoolgirls from their white vans.

Therefore I think that half the people who spend a lot of energy ranting against religion are just scared that they are wrong and probably subconsciously believe in a creator but just want other people to agree with them to make them feel secure.

People who really don't believe in God are mostly happy to just carry on doing so without feeling the need to spend so much energy ranting about something that they don't believe in.
(, Mon 26 Nov 2007, 22:49, closed)
Well said that man.
(, Tue 27 Nov 2007, 8:45, closed)
I think the educated scientists/ atheists
like your kind of faith. You don't shove it in people's faces, and you don't shout about it or force it on others.

(Well, I respect that)

If everyone else (of faith) did that, especially the angry shouty ones that try and scupper science education (imho), my this wold would be slightly more pleasant. Faw fewer arguments. And deaths of "infidels".
(, Tue 27 Nov 2007, 8:48, closed)
Nah. I'm not done.
Theist: belief in a GOD.

Therefore, Dawkins, who clearly believes in the absoloute NON-existance of gods is NOT a Theist.

If however you choose to re-write the meaning of "theist" and choose to incorreclty believe that it simply means "to have a belief system", then yes - by an incorrect definition of the word - He may be considered to be a theist.


AFINKAWAN... just for you sunshine.

Rough Quote: "People who rant against religion secretly aren't sure and want confirmation/backup".

Paraphrase: "Vehemently homophobic people are actually gay". (no, They're mostly choosing to believe the Bible when it says that homosexuality is wrong)

Ok... Here's an alternative to your simplistic point of view. If you choose to liken vocal Atheists to people who lech over young girls... try this one on for size.

I contend that some people are so horrified by the concept of others finding children sexually attractive that they feel a need to make their disgust and shock heard... and in no way harbour feelings towards minors.
Similarly, Some people who find no logic to the suggestion of an omnipotent deity are so totally shocked that others choose to live with the bible as their guide though life, that they feel a need to express this, and point out things that - to them - make it blatantly clear that no god exists.

I find it interesting that Even when someone stands up, goes against the prevalent flow and makes themselves a target of hatred in rder to state their bliefs, there are STILL those who insist upon suggesting that this person is simply not sure that what they're staing is what they belive in..

What are you going to say next? "Hey, you know those suicide Bombers that claim that "Allah is Great"... They're all actually catholics looking for support"

Really... take a step back and see if you truly believe your statements make sense.
(, Tue 27 Nov 2007, 15:23, closed)
Goodness me!
Light the touchpaper and back away... anyways. As for my stance about live and let live, I stand to exactly that. People such as those who attend Westboro Baptist Church, American Televangelists (my word, a theme) and those who blow up abortion clinics should be brought to justice, as they are crossing the line with regards to religion and breaking the law. However, far be it from me to judge and pass judgement, it's only an opinion. Personally, I don't know if there is anything after- it's certainly a comforting thought, I will say that. The idea that there is nothing is frankly scary, despite the fact we won't know about it. At the end of it all though, I still say live and let live, as long as no-one gets hurt. If on the other hand people are physically hurt, then action (far be it from me to decide what, I'm not qualified) must be taken.
(, Tue 27 Nov 2007, 22:34, closed)
Darwin was Christian

Not sure how the Evolutionists deal with this?

Have a click, you might want to find my 'nativity' post and have a chuckle.

(, Tue 27 Nov 2007, 23:36, closed)
Darwin WAS a christian.
....And he even had a little nagging doubt about his theory of Evolution based around the "perfection" of the eye.

He figured that it was too good to be an accident: he thought it was perfect. Since his death it has been discovered that the eye is in no way perfect... thus posthumously laying to rest his only doubt regarding his own theory.

The "Intelligent Design" bunch who insist that bananas are perfectly shaped for the human hand due to a greater being designing it all are basicly echoing Darwin's self doubt, but with a slightly less complex article. Carrots are also a well designed shape for anal insertion.. As are Cucumbers for vaginal.. Intelligent Design? Hmmm... probably not.
(, Wed 28 Nov 2007, 7:58, closed)
Few "issues"
'Versions' of the exact word of god
Geology and 13C dating
Lightening conductors on churches

To name but a few obvious ones.
(, Wed 28 Nov 2007, 11:50, closed)
and there was me thinking christianity was entirely about easter, after all withouth the ascention all youve really got is a bloke saying wouldnt it be great to be nice to each other (well apart from the bit about smazshing up the stalls in the temple, temper temper!) but with the ascention you have a verified son of god. my problem with religious types is the picking and choosing what to believe. look is the bible the word of god (old testament) or not, if it is then surekly you have to obey it complicitly or youll be in deep poop with him upstairs, if its not then its fiction and you may as well believe lord of the rings and use it as a basisi for oyur day to day life
(, Wed 28 Nov 2007, 16:04, closed)
as for Darwin being a christian, so what jesus was a jew
(, Wed 28 Nov 2007, 16:05, closed)
ahhhh well done Pogo..
.. for missing the entire point.
EDIT: .. and the Shift Key.
(, Wed 28 Nov 2007, 17:02, closed)
Fair point pogo
I should probably qualify that "that he meant what he said" bit: he said he was the son of God, he said he was the fulfilment of a bunch of prophecies in the Jewish texts (the Old Testament), he said nobody gets to heaven except through him (so not by "being good", no matter how good you are), he said everyone's done something wrong, some time, so that's why they can't earn their way to heaven, he did no wrong himself, he said he had to be tortured to death to make the way for us to live after death, he said when he died he'd be back on the third day, it all happened as he said and he said he was back alive in flesh and bones and he was.

He said a load of other stuff but that's kind of the key facts... you were right, pogo_it, I didn't quite emphasise that Easter business enough.
(, Wed 28 Nov 2007, 22:10, closed)

« Go Back

Pages: Latest, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, ... 1