Political Correctness at the Crossroads: College of W&M

Parent Cafe
321

<p>anti-religionists? always litigious? gosh</p>

<p>you certainliy like to generalize and to equate al-queda and people that don;'t think a cross needs to be in a secular building is a bit of a stretch…I could just as easily talk about the relgious murders taking place in the gaza strip by islamic fundamentalists and the peace loving muslims in America, but unlike you I see the difference…</p>

322

<p>If the religious leaders of the Muslims in the USA start referring to Christians as “cross-worshippers” you may have a point.</p>

<p>Until then we are left with those, of whatever background, that do use this demeaning–intentionally so–language to refer to a major world religion that they oppose in prose.</p>

323

<p>then why compare alqueda to me? I find that offensive on its face and pathetic at best</p>

324

<p>I do not.</p>

<p>I compare those who use the obnoxious phrase “cross-worshippers,” to those who also use the obnoxious and bigoted phrase “cross-worshippers.” As they share a peculiar and cruel view of those who practice a faith they do not share.</p>

<p>There are comparably hideous phrases for those of the Jewish faith, Hindu faith and Muslim faith. If these other phrases were used on CC all would condemn them, and I feel quite certain that they would be deleted by the moderators.</p>

<p>I will not use them here, even to make a valid point. I do not believe you would either. </p>

<p>Would you?</p>

325

<p>Cross-worshipper was used here in a very different context, and I doubt the person who did it even knew of its use in the other context. </p>

<p>Thing of it is, a Christian pastor who used to preach at our church often raised the question to the congregation of: What do you really worship? </p>

<p>If you’ll excuse me for going preachy for a moment, Ill explain…</p>

<p>By this he means: do you place money above the Lord? TV? The Internet (gasp)? Do you let those things get in the way of your relationship with Christ? If you do, he would say that if you’re honest with yourself, those are really the things you worship. If you judge people in church by how well or poorly they dress, perhaps you’re a clothes worshipper or a status worshipper, because you’re not showing much love for Christ or the things He stood for.</p>

<p>I have no idea how this pastor would feel about the ruckus at W&M, but if people are putting the cross symbol itself above what it stands for, as some folks seem to be doing in this case, I don’t think the words “cross-worshipper” would be too far from his tongue.</p>

326

<p>…let’s see if I follow this:</p>

<p>Your contention is that those employing a historic and deragatory phrase for a world religion were in fact having a discussion of some of the finer points of metaphysics and theology?</p>

<p>How boring.</p>

<p>Some one needs a new wardrobe as their current one, if fashionable, has become indecently transparent.</p>

327

<p>Dot–
conyat said it best. And I think you know what was meant. At this point, you are the only one who keeps resurrecting the term, seemingly to pick an argument rather than advance discourse.</p>

<p>Those who would put the placement of a symbol above the comfort of their fellow students who wish to use the non-denominational chapel are what he means. If the shoe fits…</p>

<p>And I am truly sorry Al Qaida has been caught using a similar phrase. They are obviously using it more indiscriminately.</p>

328

<p>

</p>

<p>Go back and read what was said. If I recall correctly, that’s EXACTLY what they were doing. Pointing up the fact that in the politically driven ruckus over W&M, the cross was being elevated above the values that Christ stood for. If you’ve read the New Testament, you should know that Christ in his day had some of the same objections to symbols and ritual being placed over spiritual, moral, and loving behavior.</p>

329

<p>The Christian religion, as the Jewish religion and the Muslim religion uses iconic symbols in their religious practice, but all three would consider it a great sacrilege and diminuition of their faith to be accused, under any circumstances, of worshipping an object. </p>

<p>This is common knowledge.
So common that I would suspect that even Mommusic and those who, with her, use such a mean-spirited phrase would be aware of it. </p>

<p>It is bigotry.
And were it used in an analogous fashion for Judaism, it would be called out as such by Mommusic and others.</p>

<p>Perhaps ‘bigotry-lite’ because it is said with a high-arched smirk, but it is a phrase historically and exclusively used by bigots.</p>

<p>Defend it’s usage here at the cost of your sincerity and credibility, should you value them.</p>

<p>.</p>

330

<p>

</p>

<p>Always good to know when it’s Opposite Day on CC again.</p>

331

<p>Please, Conyat, feel free to speak of Christians that value the cross Jesus was executed on in their worship as “cross-worshippers;” but I suspect you might fancy yourself ‘above that’–unlike those you make incessant excuses for.</p>

<p>Afterwards, I expect, in fairness, you will think of something as harsh and bigoted to say of Jews and their worship (their is much to chose from)…and Muslims (same)–how about Hindus?</p>

<p>Would Wikkans be going to far within the context of the current political fashion?</p>

<p>Probably.</p>

332

<p>So when I talk about my old pastor and how he might use the term “cross-worshipper” it’s: “a discussion of some of the finer points of metaphysics and theology.” But when someone who might not be a Christian uses the same phrase in the same context, it’s “harsh and bigoted”?</p>

<p>Seems like the bigotry shoe is on the other foot.</p>

333

<p>

</p>

<p>Clearly this was intended as a subtle point in Christian theology, made, no doubt, by a well intended theologian in the interset of a ‘pure-faith’ of sorts. </p>

<p>Not, as it seems so obvious, a standard and common (see: AL Qaida) bigoted and off-hand reference to Christians.</p>

<p>

<a href=“http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110009716[/url]”>http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110009716&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=297664&page=15[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=297664&page=15&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>…have fun with that.</p>

<p>.</p>

334

<p>DX–Thanks for quoting my post again. Saved me from looking it up. For the LAST time, it was CLEARLY intended (and as I explained cause you apparently didn’t get it) to refer ONLY to those who support the cross, in THIS case, above all other considerations. That is idolatry, and thinking persons (and conyat’s pastor) will agree.</p>

<p>And I had never heard the odious Al Qaida reference until you quoted it. Repeatedly repeating yourself. Say something new–this thread is getting old.</p>

335

<p>Dotty–I have to ask about terminology you used with which I am not familiar. Not being a Christian, perhaps there is something I should know but don’t. So I humbly ask, what is “interset of pure-faith”?</p>

336

<p>

<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul_Rahman_Al-Sudais[/url]”>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul_Rahman_Al-Sudais&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>

<a href=“http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/006295.php[/url]”>http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/006295.php&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>

<a href=“mypetjawa.mu.nu”>mypetjawa.mu.nu;

<p>

<a href=“http://www.mg.co.za/articlepage.aspx?area=/breaking_news/breaking_news__international_news/&articleid=284328[/url]”>http://www.mg.co.za/articlepage.aspx?area=/breaking_news/breaking_news__international_news/&articleid=284328&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>

<a href=“Al Qaeda threat to 'slit throats of worshippers of the cross' | Daily Mail Online”>Al Qaeda threat to 'slit throats of worshippers of the cross' | Daily Mail Online;

<p>etc, etc, etc…</p>

<p>.</p>

337

<p>They said all these things in English? Even the Al Queda militants in Iraq? Amazing.</p>

338

<p>notice how Dot failed to put the quotes in context, of the Pope’s speech…kind of important</p>

339

<p>Mommusic: I hope you can still make an airplane reservation, now that you have been definitively linked to al-Qaeda. (What’s Osama really like?) :p</p>

<p>In all this long discussion, with all the many Christians participating and reading along, only one of them objected to mommusic’s one-time (and I’m sure much regretted) use of the term “cross worshippers.” Could it be that the majority of Christians reading through the rapid exchange of off-the-top-of-the-head comments on a chat forum just didn’t get all that riled up about it. (And yes, I remember that HH did react to it as a “three-word rant” but didn’t actually make the point that to some Christians, this term would be “harsh” and “hideous.” As I recall, no other Christian made that point either. </p>

<p>So, DPX, you’ve made your point in regard to this one post and then some. It would have been less combative to merely say to mommusic in simple clear prose something like: you may not realize that that phrase is offensive to many Christians and here’s why. But while that approach might have fostered mutual understanding, it just wouldn’t have been as much fun. I think we all get the point now.</p>

340

<p>

I think this falls into the general category of: “Duh.”</p>

<p>

This definitely falls into the category of the pot calling the kettle black.</p>