 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Our Attorney General
|
|
|
|||||||
|
BS: Our Attorney General |
Share Thread
|
||||||
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our Attorney General From: Kim C Date: 12 Feb 01 - 10:15 AM Dr. Laura is Jewish... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our Attorney General From: LR Mole Date: 12 Feb 01 - 10:28 AM Interesting. So's Jesus. (Mole, sandbagging) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our Attorney General From: wysiwyg Date: 12 Feb 01 - 11:05 AM SOAPBOX Real change requires far more than being able to push buttons. And it requires a different response than simply letting our own buttons be pushed. The original was a slam at Dr. Laura through the easy shot of mocking literal interpretation of the Old Testament, and thus a slam also at Judaism. The rerun of it with Ashcroft is a slam at Ashcroft through people's willingness to find Dr. Laura worthy of mockery, as well as a slam against fundamantalist Christianity with which he is identified. These slams are marketed as humor because many are only too willing to take one or more stereotypes as a basis for a laugh. We need to laugh, so badly, that we go along with these. I need to laugh today too. Shall I get at the laugh I need with a joke about blacks? Or blondes? Or men? Or Martha Stewart? Sure, some days I do. But on my better days I am sorry I have. I have a "great" Jewish joke that was told to me years and years ago, that the person telling told me without asking first if I appreciated such things. It's a short, punchy, well-written item. The punch line comes before you even realize what you're hearing. There was a moment of shocked laughter when I heard it that felt really funny for about a nanosecond before the horror behind it kicked in along with my horror for having heard it at all, much less laughed. In fact my encounter with that one joke has reminded me time after time, year after year, that if I have not spoken clearly enough about what I value, before anyone even considers telling me a joke like that, people are going to think it is OK with me to tell this kind of joke. Because they have no way of knowing what I stand for, and in our society the assumption has become that this kind of humor is acceptable. But it's not OK with me, and it's also not OK with a lot of people who don't have the courage to say so unless someone does take a stand. It's not OK with me when people who have acted like friends that believe in the highest ideals send me e-mail jokes that mock the target group of their choice. I might not like the actions or members of that group myself. I may engage in dedicateed action against them. But I don't find mockery to be an effective tool for positive change. Ever. Even when it makes me laugh... it diminishes me far more than it diminishes the target, and it diminishes even more my respect for the one telling the joke. It does not make my action against that group's wrongs any more creative, flexible, or effective. It does not enliven my friendship with the person telling the joke. It diminishes the effectivess we can have working together to address the wrong things. These things... they reduce us to acting like button-pushers. ~Susan
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our Attorney General From: Jim the Bart Date: 12 Feb 01 - 11:43 AM People mock things that they consider dangerous in the hope that what is expressed in jest can help disarm the object of the joke. The joke stated here, in my opinion, is not aimed at Christianity. It is not aimed at all fundamentalists, although it might be easy to interpret it that way. It is, again in my opinion, aimed at fundametalist thinkers who wish to use their fundamentalism as a guide to public policy. Don't be offended by the joke unless you align yourself with the thought. It would be the same as me taking offense when the Klan is called racist; because they claim to be patriotic Americans and I claim to be a patriotic American doesn't mean we are the same. Let's keep some perspective. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our Attorney General From: mousethief Date: 12 Feb 01 - 11:48 AM Okay, now that we have all preached our sermons from our high horses, whether for or against this joke, let's agree to disagree and talk about something else, shall we? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our Attorney General From: Jim the Bart Date: 12 Feb 01 - 11:53 AM Oh yes, I almost forgot. Do I consider Christianity dangerous? Not on its face. Do I consider Fundamentalism dangerous? It can be. Do I consider those who try to impose fundamentalist religious dogma into public policy dangerous? You bet your sweet *ss I do. And I do not care whether it's fundamental Christianity, or the Taliban, or whatever. I will not question your belief system as long as you do not try to impose your dogma on my life. That shows disrespect for my belief system. Do I make jokes about people and their foibles? Yes, I do. I will joke about the goofy things we all do, but not the way that we are created or the things that we believe. Unless those beliefs lead us to act the fool. Then all guarantees are void. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our Attorney General From: mousethief Date: 12 Feb 01 - 11:58 AM Okay, NOW can we talk about something different? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our Attorney General From: LR Mole Date: 12 Feb 01 - 12:07 PM I use chicken with rice soup in my meatloaf.On the other hand, the worst meatloaf I ever had, had mooshed-up rice cakes in it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our Attorney General From: Rick Fielding Date: 12 Feb 01 - 12:14 PM Some good points made by all (well, most) but isn't it fairly safe to say that we as humans are fairly inconsistant in how we deal with humour? Moods change, political situations change, WE change. Surely there are jokes we'd find funny one day, and depending on our state of mind, dismiss it the next. Hi Doug. Hope all is well. Rick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our Attorney General From: wysiwyg Date: 12 Feb 01 - 12:23 PM Alex, I'd like to suggest a slight movement to get a fresh view of what you're seeing here. See, one viewpoint is that people are not just ranting and running and doing harm. From where I am viewing it, I see that some of us are not yet done listening to one another. Can you not see that people have been hearing and responding to one another? Would you not wish for this to continue as long as necessary? (It won't, not that long.... but wouldn't it be great if it did?) Take me and Arne for instance. God, I want to know what he thinks, now, about all KINDS of stuff! I would never get his view from people who agree with me about Jesus! My view grows when I must enlarge it to see what Arne sees. I suspect is is the same for him. Now I'm dying to know what Bart thinks about what I actually just wrote (not about being personally offended at all, as his post addressed). I dunno if he'd seen my post, or was addressing it at all. But I can't wait to see what he says! I see threads like this as a circle, and people sitting in it taking turns, and the turns going around more than once. I don't assume any one person's one single turn is going to exhaust my knowledge or anyone else's, or anyone's ability to hear others. How do others see this discussion? ~S~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our Attorney General From: mousethief Date: 12 Feb 01 - 12:25 PM It looks like this to me: A: This is offensive. B: Lighten up. A: This is offensive because of blah blah blah. B: This is not offensive because of yada-yada-yada. Lighten up. A: This is offensive, can't you see? Yip yip yip. B: This is not offensive, what's wrong with you? Lighten up. and so forth. I don't really see any communication taking place. Alex |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our Attorney General From: wysiwyg Date: 12 Feb 01 - 12:27 PM Alex, Thanks. I'm glad I asked-- from that view, it does look awful. But look in my heart. It just heard YOU. Do you allow for that? ~S~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our Attorney General From: RichM Date: 12 Feb 01 - 12:29 PM Dear John:
A) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Leviticus 1: 9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
No, don't smite them! It's not considered polite to smite neighbors. Simply ask them if adding a pinch of rosemary or perhaps your favorite bbq sauce would sufficiently mask the odor?
B) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21: 7. In this day & age, what would be a fair market price for her? Unfortunately, market prices for your daughters is hard to set. You should direct your marketing efforts more specifically, based on her talents. Can she arrange flowers? A dinner for 32 people? Can she repot a withered Xmas poinsettia to re-bloom successfully for Easter?
You may also want to consider licensing, or leasing her talents rather than simply selling her.
C) I know I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev 15: 19-24). The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
This is difficult. It's not polite to simply ask. Perhaps a discreet sign in your living room and office would suffice.
D) Leviticus 25: 44 states that I may own slaves, both male & female,provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims this applies to Mexicans but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
Why not, indeed? Canadians are generally well trained in most modern tasks, and are housebroken to boot. Very easy to integrate into your household routines.
E) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35: 2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?
No, you can hire someone to do it. Martha can recommend someone, if you like. God understands the concept of agents. He did send the angel to Mary, rather than appearing Him(Her)Self.
F) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree, can you settle this?
Martha prefers to eat shellfish herself, rather than homosexuals. But your preference may differ. Cuisine is definitely more eclectic these days. G) Leviticus 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20 20 or is there some wiggle room here?
Have you investigated Laser eye surgery?
H) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Leviticus 19:27. How should they die?
By innuendo and gossip at your favorite hairdresser's... Make the appointment now.
I) I know from Leviticus 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
J) My uncle has a farm. He violates Leviticus 19:19 by planting two crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton & polyester blend). He tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev. 24: 10-16). Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws (Lev. 20: 14)?
Yes, a private family affair is preferable in this case. Catered of course, and you should have a suitable party theme, with appropriate hats and table decorations. You may want to invite neighbors and relatives that annoy you. It may give them a subtle hint to behave. Rich McCarthy |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our Attorney General From: RichM Date: 12 Feb 01 - 12:39 PM Sorry, I should have included the statement: How would Martha Stewart respond to these questions? Rich McCarthy |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our Attorney General From: mousethief Date: 12 Feb 01 - 12:41 PM Oh Rich. Surely Martha Stewart would have given a RECIPE for the bbq sauce? Susan, I can't see your heart. Perhaps if you opened your blouse? Alex |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our Attorney General From: wysiwyg Date: 12 Feb 01 - 12:51 PM Alex, my blouse is your blouse. We opened them long ago but we seldom stop to look. I miss your e-mails. I know "argue threads" feel bad to you. I still don't understand why, though, and I bet if we go after it here we'll be sorry. I thought Rich's was funny. The interaction bewteen the two viewpoints made it funny. Just the IDEA of them interacting made it funny. (The persistence of humans in communication is one of my favorite themes, whether it's humor or a movie like "Children of a Lesser God.") I didn't even need to know it involved Martha. It put my brain in the Tween Zone, where all thought is free and light and silly till I choose to come back to earth. I just loved the juxtaposition of now-values and then-values. In fact in seminary it would be an exposition in Moral and Ethical Theology, where the struggle is to take old statements and apply them today as best we can. And I needed this as an example for a new friend who asked me about just that! So thanks, Rich, whatever your motives were! And thanks, Alex, for sticking with the discussion, easy or not. You go on an' hoe my blouse down any time, you old big bad woof. ~S~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our Attorney General From: RichM Date: 12 Feb 01 - 01:09 PM My motives were simple: I was in "trickster" mode....:)) Rich McCarthy |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our Attorney General From: mousethief Date: 12 Feb 01 - 01:19 PM Um, I was going along with Rich, but saying that Martha would have not just SUGGESTED bbq sauce, she would have given you a RECIPE. I was making fun of Martha Stewart. Get it? Get it? Never mind. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our Attorney General From: Jim the Bart Date: 13 Feb 01 - 10:16 AM Susan - I did read your post, but my response was directed more toward Troll's than yours. My point was that in my opinion the original joke is political satire, not religious humor. I base this on the analysis (mine, of course) that it is not lampooning Ashcroft for reading or believing the Bible as much as it is pointing out what happens when literal interpretation of sacred text is applied to public policy. I know, Alex, that we have gone over this ground before. But bear with me, because I think there are some important distinctions that need to be made. And since the one real advantage that the human mind has over computers is the ability to make the subtlest of distinctions, I think we should exercise that ability from time to time Racist jokes are never acceptable and they're never funny; they are mean spirited. Maybe that's some kind of criteria to use in judging these things: is the intent of the "humor" mean spirited? I have laughed at a lot of macabre, dark jokes - Princess Diana jokes, Martha Stewart jokes, airplane crash jokes; jokes that I would not have found funny if I knew the people involved. Later, when thinking about "the joke" and realizing that it was mean spirited, I resolved not to repeat it or pass it along. As I said before, humor is an attempt to disarm something that we consider dangerous or hurtful; when you can laugh at something it loses some of its power over you. Maybe it would be better to start a thread by simply saying that application of scripture to public policy leads to certain untenable positions. But that wouldn't be anywhere near as clever or interesting to the reader. Or funny. But of course, that's just my opinion. By the way: Mr. McCarthy - excellent. Now, as Alex has suggested, I'm off this subject. But there will be others, I'm sure. Have a great day, all. Bart |