#234310 - 29/09/2004 20:29
Re: Poll: Bill Burkett
[Re: SE_Sport_Driver]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 20/12/1999
Posts: 31600
Loc: Seattle, WA
|
Quote:
That they have pride in their ethnicity.
I disagree with that interpretation. I think they'd be trying to say a lot more than they're proud, when it's expressed as an integral part of the advertising of their business.
When someone puts their telephone number on their business card, they're not saying they're proud they own a telephone.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#234311 - 29/09/2004 21:04
Expressing yourself through symbols
[Re: tfabris]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
FWIW, one thing that is emphasized in most of the churches that I've attended is standing up and not hiding your faith. In fact, if we truly are saved from our sins it makes perfect sense that we’d want to proclaim our identity in Christ for the entire world to see. For many this means wearing T-Shirts, putting bumper stickers and fish on cars, and yes, fish on business cards and other such things. It is a way to show others that we are not Christians only on Sunday mornings when we go to church, but in everything we do. Of course it goes without saying that for this to be true our faith must be lived beyond wearing a symbol of identify- that kind of hypocrisy speaks volumes and is a huge turn off to non Christians (as evidenced in this thread). I realize that there have been those who wish to be treated differently or favored because they are Christians, but the vast majority of people I know who do all of the above are sincere in trying to communicate their identity in all that they do, not win business.
Personally, I don't generally don't rely on external labels to identify myself, except for sometimes wearing a cross around my neck (which doesn't always identify a Christian anyway- this is more of a personal thing to focus my thoughts during the day). There are multiple reasons I don't use symbols, certainly near the top is the fact that they are ambiguous and often don't leave much room for personal interaction (not to mention often they are tacky or even wrong in the case of T-Shirts and bumper stickers). Another drawback is that people assume they know all they need to about you when they see that fish (once again, this thread is an evidence of that). I generally haven't had difficulty demonstrating to others that I'm a Christian without having any symbolism around me- even without explicitly talking about God around people they soon figure it out. None of this is to say I don't think Christians should have symbols; they just aren't for me. For some it is a natural and valid way to express themselves.
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#234312 - 29/09/2004 21:11
Re: Expressing yourself through symbols
[Re: JeffS]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 20/12/1999
Posts: 31600
Loc: Seattle, WA
|
Well said, and well reasoned.
I don't necessarily believe everyone who puts fish on business cards has the same point of view, but when you put it like that, I can see how it's feasible they could have that point of view.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#234313 - 29/09/2004 22:37
Re: Poll: Bill Burkett
[Re: tfabris]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 05/01/2001
Posts: 4903
Loc: Detroit, MI USA
|
Quote:
I think they'd be trying to say a lot more than they're proud, when it's expressed as an integral part of the advertising of their business.
In the example I posted earlier, my father-in-law puts the Italian flag on his business card for one reason and one reason only - he is proud of it. It isn't a business move, it's just something he is proud of. Out of all of the work we've done in the 3 past years (that I've been actively involved), I'd say only 5-10% of our work has been for other Italians. Sure, this is just one example, but you'd need a lot of proven examples to come to the conclusion that most Chrisitans who put symbols on business material are in some way being prejudiced against non-Christians.
_________________________
Brad B.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#234314 - 29/09/2004 23:00
Re: Poll: Bill Burkett
[Re: SE_Sport_Driver]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 31/08/1999
Posts: 1649
Loc: San Carlos, CA
|
Quote:
No. It's just a symbol on a card.
When an average white guy can print "proud to be a white, heterosexual, atheist male" on his business card and not get harassed by every person he gives is to then you can argue that a religious symbol is "just a symbol on a card" until then you should expect people to take it in the same vein most here would the above phrase.
-Mike
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#234315 - 29/09/2004 23:02
Re: Poll: Bill Burkett
[Re: SE_Sport_Driver]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 20/12/1999
Posts: 31600
Loc: Seattle, WA
|
Ask your father-in-law. Ask him if he honestly believes that having the Italian flag on his business card does not influence a potential Italian customer in any way. Ask him if he also has the Italian flag in his phone book ad, or, if he doesn't have an ad, if he would put it there if he were to buy one? And if the answer is yes, ask him this: "Let's say an Italian person was looking through the phone book, and he saw several competing businesses. Do you think that seeing the Italian flag might make them more likely to choose your business over its competitors?" I will concede that it's possible the thought never occurred to him, and that the accusations I've leveled here are baseless in his case at least. But I'd be very curious to know his answer to those questions. Please note: All of the above is null and void if his business is an Italian restaurant.  Also note that I'm Italian, too, and I would not be influenced one way or the other by an Italian flag on a business card or a phone book ad.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#234316 - 29/09/2004 23:40
Re: Poll: Bill Burkett
[Re: mcomb]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 05/01/2001
Posts: 4903
Loc: Detroit, MI USA
|
Quote:
When an average white guy can print "proud to be a white, heterosexual, atheist male" on his business card and not get harassed by every person he gives is to then you can argue that a religious symbol is "just a symbol on a card" until then you should expect people to take it in the same vein most here would the above phrase.
We've already addressed how there is a double standard against any white person from doing this. Because of certain dark parts of our history, this sounds too much like white superiority.
A more fair example would be is it wrong for someone to put "black and proud" or "vegetarian owned" on a business card.
General observation: The discussion has changed a bit now.. Earlier, it was suggested that putting a symbol on a card was a way of offending anyone who didn't fit that particular group and it was a way to claim superiority. Yet, Tony's most recent post suggests only that putting a symbol on a card might generate certain feelings of community (ie, the Christian community or Italian community). I'll see what answers I can get out of my father-in-law (minor language barrier here) but I hope that the notion of a Christian implying that all atheist are untrustworthy is as ridiculous as the notion that my father-in-law would be implying that all non-Italians don't know how to run a construction business.
_________________________
Brad B.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#234317 - 30/09/2004 04:40
Re: Poll: Bill Burkett
[Re: JBjorgen]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 13/02/2002
Posts: 3212
Loc: Portland, OR
|
Quote:
Quote:
Christ was about charity, forgiveness, good stewardship, uplifting the poor and middle class, etc,
Sounds like you need a few re-reads of your Bible. While all of those things are represented, that's clearly not what Christ was about.
Really? Feel free to toss a few scripture references my way that I can start with. I can't think of too anywhere in the Bible (aside from the Old Testament, which was the old code that Christ was trying to change) that suggest that.
Quote:
Furthermore, Christ advocated charity, forgiveness, etc on a personal level as a result of a changed heart (being spirtually born again). Any of those things are more meaningless to him than a pile of filthy rags apart from that.
Okay, so if Christ advocates those on a personal level, and a Christian political leader supposedly gets his political ethics and direction from his personal ethics and relationship with Christ (as JeffS suggests), then how do you plan to reconcile the obvious disparity between the two in the case of so many of our conservative Christian political leaders?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#234318 - 30/09/2004 05:48
Re: Poll: Bill Burkett
[Re: SE_Sport_Driver]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 13/02/2002
Posts: 3212
Loc: Portland, OR
|
Quote:
General observation: The discussion has changed a bit now.. Earlier, it was suggested that putting a symbol on a card was a way of offending anyone who didn't fit that particular group and it was a way to claim superiority. Yet, Tony's most recent post suggests only that putting a symbol on a card might generate certain feelings of community (ie, the Christian community or Italian community).
I noticed that, as well. I don't wear 37 pieces of flair, but I do have a subtle signal as my personalized license plate -- sort of my "flag on a backpack" that Canucks are known for. It's there for a few reasons, and I think those reasons lend credence to all the theories mentioned.
First, I'm proud to be Canadian, even though I'm not a flag-waving, face-painting "Patriot". Second, it's there for any fellow Canadians to notice, and get the joke. I've gotten the occasional honk from passing cars with with Canadian plates/stickers/etc., so yes, it does generate a small amount of community feelings. Third, when I dig deep and answer honestly, yes, it's there because I do feel superior to the general American populace (and before anyone thinks less of me for that, let me note that my mother is American, and I have dual Canadian/US citizenship). My nationality doesn't make me feel superior on an individual level, talking person-to-person, though -- I certainly don't feel superior to anyone on this BBS, and in fact, there's quite a few here that I feel vastly inferior to, regardless of nationality.
I think those first and last really form a circle, because pride, in my observance of life -- is just a subtle way of saying "I feel superior." Not being proud of something, however, doesn't equate to being ashamed, either, as was intimated earlier in the thread. For example, I don't feel proud of what I do at work. I know I'm good at what I do, and I'm pleased with it, but not "proud". It just... is. Likewise, I'm not proud or ashamed of being tall, I just am. I'm not proud to be an American, I just am. Yet, for some reason, I feel proud to be Canadian, and even though I had no choice in where I or anyone else is born, heck yeah, that trait makes me feel like I'm in a minorly better class of people. (As I proof-read this, I'm now noting that there's a difference between the verbs "to feel" and "to be", and I make a conscious choice of using the first -- i.e. I'm aware that my feelings don't necessarily reflect reality.)
Ultimately, what JeffS said about not decking himself out in religious symbols resonates with me. It's like that old adage that if you're good, and you know it, that you don't have to tell everyone, and can just go about being good at whatever it is. Everyone who matters knows you're good.
Heh. Flame away.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#234319 - 30/09/2004 11:43
Re: Poll: Bill Burkett
[Re: SE_Sport_Driver]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
Quote:
Because of certain dark parts of our history, this sounds too much like white superiority.
A more fair example would be is it wrong for someone to put "black and proud"
First, there's a lot of history of Christian supremacy, too. Many other religious groups were kept down by Christians and sects of Christianity, both in and out of this country. Second, there's a decent history of (attempted?) black supremacy, too, and even more black separatism. Third, I'm terribly offended by that double-standard that makes it okay for black people to be proud but not white people. It's not as if black folks are more racially homogenous than white folks; they come from as many different places, and very few of them have connections to their Zulu or Pygmy or Ethiopian or whatever heritage. Fourth, I think it's divisive. So, yes, that would be offensive to me in much the same way that "Christian owned" offends me.
Quote:
"vegetarian owned"
I'll admit that this wouldn't offend me, but largely because my reaction would be dominated with "huh?". I can't imagine that this would ever happen (unless it was for a restaurant or a granola-y type of store or unless cruelty-free was a part of their advertising otherwise, in which case, it'd seem relevant), so it's hard to fairly judge what a reaction would be.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#234320 - 30/09/2004 16:17
Re: Poll: Bill Burkett
[Re: SE_Sport_Driver]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 31/08/1999
Posts: 1649
Loc: San Carlos, CA
|
Quote:
We've already addressed how there is a double standard against any white person from doing this. Because of certain dark parts of our history, this sounds too much like white superiority.
As opposed to say the crusades, witch burning, overzealous missionaries destroying native cultures, the KKK (predominantly very religious people), and all the other injustices perpetrated by religious groups or people?
Quote:
A more fair example would be is it wrong for someone to put "black and proud" or "vegetarian owned" on a business card.
And I would find those objectionable as well on most business cards. I don't print my shirt size on my business card so why should you print your culinary habits on yours? Its an issue of relevancy (or lack thereof). Unless the issue is relevant to your business than the only logical assumption is that you are trying to sway people with similar beliefs, tastes, whatever to do business with you.
-Mike
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#234321 - 30/09/2004 18:56
Re: Poll: Bill Burkett
[Re: mcomb]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 05/01/2001
Posts: 4903
Loc: Detroit, MI USA
|
To both you and Bitt. I'm not really sure what you're saying here. I wasn't justifying the double standard against whites, I was just pointing to its cause. Both of you seem quite comfortable lumping all Christians together because of such things as the Crusades and witch burning. Is that how you see me? A witch burning Crusader? I mean what are you trying to say? Any of us could give bad examples of any cultural group that some would use as justification for prejudice. Is that what you're trying to do here? It just amazes me how so many of you feel so comfortable looking down on Christians or putting thoughts or intentions in our heads. Is that all I am to you? Are we just going to sit here throwing examples and counter examples at one another? Is it even worth me communicating to any of you or do you conclude that I must be Christian so I must in some way be trying to use exclusionary tactics to either sway people over to my belief system or only reach out to people that share the same faith as me because why else would I have ever mentioned that I'm Christian?
This is really getting out of control here. Is your ideal world some sort of grey colored mix where nobody can identify themselves as anything or take pride in anything without being perceived as trying to offend of exclude a group that does not match that desciption?
I think I'm done with Off Topic for a few months.
_________________________
Brad B.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#234322 - 30/09/2004 19:13
Re: Poll: Bill Burkett
[Re: SE_Sport_Driver]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 24/01/2002
Posts: 3937
Loc: Providence, RI
|
Quote:
A witch burning Crusader?
Well, was she made of wood, or not??
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#234323 - 30/09/2004 19:17
Re: Poll: Bill Burkett
[Re: Daria]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 20/12/1999
Posts: 31600
Loc: Seattle, WA
|
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#234324 - 30/09/2004 19:36
Re: Poll: Bill Burkett
[Re: SE_Sport_Driver]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
Quote:
Both of you seem quite comfortable lumping all Christians together because of such things as the Crusades and witch burning.
No, we're just pointing out that double-standard exists, and that it's reprehensible. I don't intend to lump all Christians together. I don't believe that my wife, for example, has much in common with you or Jeff or Jon beyond the fact that you all believe in the same person from 2000 years ago. I have not once said anything bad about Christians, only ones who wear it on their sleeves in what appears to me to be an exclusionary tactic. Even then, I only complained about the practice, not the people, although I'll admit to a prejudice against the people who use that tactic. In my experience, they are the people I'd rather avoid. My wife tends to agree, even if she's somewhat less dogmatic about it than I am.
That being said, I do actually use a Christian-branded VCR repairman, because he's good, fast, and cheap. He was recommended to me by someone else, otherwise I'd probably have avoided him. (In reality, I beleve that the man is Arabic, but I'm not sure. He has a vague indeterminate accent and olive skin. He could be Greek for all I know.) But he's not in that I'm better than you mode by any stretch of the imagination, though he does wear it on his sleeve, which bothers me, though he's certainly genuine about it.
I think the thing that sits wrong with me has a close relationship with your question "why else would I have ever mentioned that I'm Christian?". I think that's the crux of the matter. Why would you bring it up? Your religion, IMO, is a matter between you and your God. I'm not relevant to it at all. It's exactly like saying "I'd like to be your plumber, and, by the way, I really like Happy Days." It may be accurate; it may be something that's important to you, perhaps very important, but it does not affect me at all, and, honestly, I don't care to hear about it. It's certainly within your rights to tell me, but it's also within my rights to not care and be irritated by it.
People can express themselves as much as they want. They can be proud of things. But that doesn't mean that everyone is going to magically like them and that no one will be offended. If they think that's the case, they're terribly naive. Religion in particular pulls up strong emotions. If they think that they can get the good ones and there be no bad ones, again, they're naive. And the place for group pride is not in advertising I don't think. I have no problem with a Christian pride parade any more than I have a problem with a Gay pride parade or Irish pride or whatever.
Again, I'll admit to lumping the Christian advertisers together, but I do not lump all Christians together. I don't think badly of you, despite the fact that you keep trying to put words in my mouth. I haven't yet figured out if you're just being argumentative, if you're really trying to understand what I'm saying and I'm not expressing myself clearly enough, or if you just can't comprehend my attitude.
Eh; I've totally lost my train of thought. Rest assured that I don't think you're an idiot or hate you or anything.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#234325 - 30/09/2004 19:53
Re: Poll: Bill Burkett
[Re: wfaulk]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 24/01/2002
Posts: 3937
Loc: Providence, RI
|
Quote:
I have not once said anything bad about Christians, only ones who wear it on their sleeves in what appears to me to be an exclusionary tactic.
"I don't do it, except when I do."
I know what you were getting at, and I believe you, but I gotta say, you're a flip-flopper. I'm not voting for you.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#234326 - 30/09/2004 20:01
Re: Poll: Bill Burkett
[Re: Daria]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
I meant I never said anything bad about Christians as a whole, rather only that subset. For those that might not have understood what I meant.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#234327 - 30/09/2004 20:04
Re: Poll: Bill Burkett
[Re: wfaulk]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 20/12/1999
Posts: 31600
Loc: Seattle, WA
|
Bitt, you've made me think of a point that I kept meaning to say in this thread...
In my posts about the fish-on-the-business-card, I was trying to glean the motives behind putting it there. I wasn't trying to say it's inherently bad. Whether the reason a person puts it there is pride, or an attempt to draw Christian customers, either way, it's a free country.
If a fish on a business card gets them more customers, then more power to 'em. That's capitalism. If they're doing it for pride only, okay fine. Seeing the fish makes me, a potential customer, think consciously about their motives for putting it there, so I don't know if that's what they want or not. Maybe it is.
Of course, if they also exclude all non-Christians from their employed staff, then that becomes a completely different question. But a fish on a business card? Go for it. You'll piss a few people off, but probably make buddies with others. The people who get pissed off, you probably didn't want as a customer anyway.
... wait, or did you? Hm.
Now we're into the question of... What reaction does it cause, regardless of the motive? And what if the result is a different reaction than they expected?
If the fish produces a negative reaction in some people as expressed by others in this thread (even if the reaction is an incorrect assumption based on prejudice), then is that really what they wanted to put on the card? Are these people even aware that it turns some people off? Do they know that it's going to change the response demographic?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#234328 - 30/09/2004 20:21
Re: Poll: Bill Burkett
[Re: tfabris]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
My uninformed opinion would be that they'd think that, at worst, it'd be a non-issue, but when presented with the notion that people may avoid them because of it, they'd back it up with the "I don't want them as customers anyway" argument. Now, if that'd be based on "in for a penny, in for a pound" mentality or actual disgust I won't make a guess on. (So I won't make a guess as to the intentions of these fictional people who I've uninformedly made up actions for in the first place. Strange where I draw the line, huh?)
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#234329 - 30/09/2004 21:49
Re: Poll: Bill Burkett
[Re: SE_Sport_Driver]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 31/08/1999
Posts: 1649
Loc: San Carlos, CA
|
Quote:
To both you and Bitt. I'm not really sure what you're saying here. I wasn't justifying the double standard against whites, I was just pointing to its cause.
I was just pointing out that there is a similar viewpoint (not sure I'd call it a double standard) against organized religion. I'm certainly not saying either is a healthy or valid viewpoint, just pointing out that there will be some people out there who will recoil from both in a similar way.
Quote:
Is that how you see me? A witch burning Crusader? I mean what are you trying to say?
No, not at all. I don't assume you are a witch burning, crusader anymore than I assume the aforementioned proud white guy is a KKK member. Your right though, we went far enough on that tangent anyway.
Your obviously an intelligent, rational and caring human being. I base this on your words and actions not the labels you place on yourself. I realize that the labels are largely irrelevant (to me, obviously not you) which is part of the reason I object to the need for the publicly displayed labels in the first place. I don't assume anything about you because you are a Christian which may be the crux of the matter for me. If I find out in a casual way that my plumber is a religious man it in no way changes my opinion of him, but if I find out from his add or his business card it becomes an unnecessary and irrelevant part of his sales pitch. It's no different than my slimy car salesman trying to mimic my lifestyle and beliefs to ingratiate himself to me in the hopes that I'll buy a car from him now that he is my "friend".
Quote:
I think I'm done with Off Topic for a few months.
Sorry, I really didn't mean to make you uncomfortable. I generally try to avoid these types of conversations for exactly that reason.
-Mike
Edited by mcomb (30/09/2004 22:11)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#234330 - 01/10/2004 05:15
Re: Poll: Bill Burkett
[Re: SE_Sport_Driver]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 06/10/1999
Posts: 2591
Loc: Seattle, WA, U.S.A.
|
Brad! Well, this thread has gone places I would not have guessed, but I can't regret that. Think of what it may have done for the stagnant keyboard industry. As has happened before, I have either started or contributed to a thread and then not been able to keep up in real time. That is usually a combination of: trying to figure out how to respond; being a crummy typist who has to dedicate serious blocks of time to translate thoughts into text; and that whole gainful employment thing. It seems that teh only time I get to respond is when there's a presidential debate on the telly. I sifted back through a number of posts in the thread since the point that I was called a bigot, IIRC, and will try to contribute back to the thread some motley collection of my thoughts. From that sifting, I pasted a bunch of things that you and others have said and will try to use them as a fulcrum for my response. If anyone feels that I have cherry-picked or used their comments out of context, please send me an e-mail with the subject "Jim, you are a really bad person".... Brad: Quote:
No, it's saying "I'm proud of my faith." That's it.
I'll take your word for that. I don't think that is what *everyone* is saying with their fish.
Tangent: I could have sworn I got into a discussion on this BBS about the lyrics to this song and about how I got into *another* BBS discussion (on another BBS/list) with some Christian country music fans. They all either reassured or pressured me ("you are being *Way* too politically correct!") to think that "It is just a song! Relax! Get over it!"
This may seem completely unrelated to this thread, but the stake I am trying to put in the ground is the notion of how people perceive what they do in the context of their own social norms versus how their actions can be perceived by others who don't share the same beliefs of the same sense of "the norms". Is Montgomery's "Little Girl" just a song? *I* certainly don't think so. What do you think?
Brad:
Quote:
No one with a Christian symbol on their car is saying "trust me or whatever because I'm Christian" so you're comparison to an Italian salesperson doesn't quite fit the other quite bigotted examples you pointed out.
I unfairly asked a negative rhetorical question here without explaining it. What I meant to imply is that I actually *have* have a car salesman (at a big local VW dealer) confide to me that I could trust the dealership because the owners were good Christians. I could almost see his Tony Robbins teeth shatter when I told him that that particular aspect of his sales pitch could be deal breaker for me (I could see a bit of the "sh*t, that's what the sales manager told me to day!" in his eyes. Oh, I don't know. Maybe he had "gone rogue", but it didn't seem like it). Anyhow, it was interesting to talk with some folks 2 years later about how shabbily they felt thay had been treated *after* they bought their car there.
Brad:
Quote:
No. It's just a symbol on a card. You are inferring all of these things because of a symbol on a card. If the first question the contractor asked you before even giving you the card was if you were Christian or not, then it'd be different
With the previous "No one with a Christian symbol on their car" and "It's just a symbol on a card." you, as a Christian (I think you have said you are such) would seem to be generalizing about Christians thoughts and deeds in a way that would cause me to be labeled as a bigot if I did the same as a non-Christian. Oh, I don't know. Maybe these two absolutes were published in the August Secret Christian Newsletter and I just didn't get my copy (I signed up under an assumed name and I think they got my address wrong!).
Quote:
Bigot still seams to stick.
It is funny. I think my skin is probably thicker than dbrashear's -- at least on my butt and other critical areas. I am too old to be thin-skinned. OK, there are some things I will get torqued about. Say something like "your buddy Bill Clinton" and I will respond testily within a nansecond to correct you. But if you want to think I am a bigot or prejudiced? Cool. Whatever. Everybody is prejudiced. I guess the question is what we do with it.
With respect to my perceptions of the Christian ( I think they shorted it to xTian on some BBS) fish planted next to the "Proud to be an American" bumper sticker on the back of a (foreign?) car, I probably also did not elaborate enough...
Part of what prompted my "pissed off" comment was the experience I have had with some of those folks (who IMHO wanted me to trust them because they were Christians). The canvas guy? Quoted me ~$600 for a $300 job in 1991 I *think* because he assumed that I was a rich boat owner (instead of a near-broke public employee) and thought he could shoot the moon and get away with it. The painting guy? Kept dancing around the price tag for an easily estimatable job (sleazebag!) with some "Don't you worry. I'll treat you right." bulls*t based (I *think*) on his assumption that I was probably part of the club. This the painter I was referred to by the (Christian, as I discovered later) self-storage manager who also put me in contact with some independent (read:unlicensed, uninsured) movers who "I could trust" (read: Christians). Anyhow, the movers turned out to be reasonally OK.
I don't mean to read too much into this particular series of experiences, but just to use them as an example. If, in Michigan, the fish is "just a symbol on a card" then I would say that is *way* different from what I see here. The remodeler's cube van with the big-ass fish on it? Sorry Brad, that isn't just pride. It is advertising. I won't presume to speak for Christians, but I won't deny my experience.
In the politically-correct vein, the notion of "You can trust me, I'm Italian" probably hasn't faded too far into our past. When I think of an insular neighborhood like Boston's North End or Southie, there is and was a certain neighborhood loyalty that hewed close to ethnic and religious lines that you can't say is all bad. Support your neighbor's/neighborhood businesses -- and you maybe *can* trust them because you know them. It probably isn't useful or relevant in this context to think too much about the negatives in those neighborhoods....
What I see in "the Fish" sometimes, though, is not sense of community but of "hanging out a shingle". The notion that "It is just a symbol on a card" just does not hold. At least the gents at the Rotary Club will admit they are there in great part to advance their business interests. What is so hard about that?
Quote:
In the example I posted earlier, my father-in-law puts the Italian flag on his business card for one reason and one reason only - he is proud of it. It isn't a business move, it's just something he is proud of. Out of all of the work we've done in the 3 past years (that I've been actively involved), I'd say only 5-10% of our work has been for other Italians.
Actually, with the shifting demographics in some cities, trying to use an Italian flag as an advertising prop could be a losing proposition. I don't know your father-in-law, but if you say he puts the flag on his business card for reasons of pride alone, I can believe it. Maybe I have met him.
Quote:
Sure, this is just one example, but you'd need a lot of proven examples to come to the conclusion that most Chrisitans who put symbols on business material are in some way being prejudiced against non-Christians.
Are Christians who put symbols on their business materials being "prejudiced against non-Christaian". I don't want to generalize too much about the intent of a large group of people, but I am willing to bet thet a lot of them don't see it that way. And I am not saying that any of these people are starting with a conscious desire to piss me off. However, I think it come down to a common disconnect between what people believe they are doing and how that is perceived by folks outside of their "norm club". I would also couple this with with the common phenomenon of what I think can be characterized as cognitive dissonance: "I put the fish on my business card because I'm proud, not because I am an aspiring enterpreneur.....my isn't it nice -- the side benefit that I can also send the secret handshake to customers, develop business contacts and make a lot of money?....but I really put the fish on just because I am proud." Reverend Ike marches on in more subtle ways.
Prejudiced or not, I definitely have developed some suspicious opinions on this, but it is not all from simple prejudice and a lot of it is from direct dealings. I also think (wow, no huge surprise) that in this country there is a pretty direct connection between religion and politics in this realm that fortifies my suspicious opinions. Any of the folks that I know that have gone the way of Amway have adopted a certain evangelical zeal and have fallen into more evangelical religious beliefs at the same time -- and political views to fit. Correlations between plastic fish and an array of conservative bumper stickers are not absolute/100% but are definitely there. I would say that there is also a correlation with enterpreneurial, individualist (government should be smaller) politics that I hope you won't be offended if I guess that your views may represent.
McComb:
Quote:
When an average white guy can print "proud to be a white, heterosexual, atheist male" on his business card and not get harassed by every person he gives is to then you can argue that a religious symbol is "just a symbol on a card" until then you should expect people to take it in the same vein most here would the above phrase.
At Lucent, our group had a friendly manager who was "born-again" and who routinely fired up his laptop for presentations (hooked up to a LCD projector) with a screensaver that would scroll Psalms and Bible verses during breaks in the presentation. No one blinked. Nobody -- no higher manager in the room -- pulled James aside and said "Hey, do you think that is really appropriate?" I just ignored it. He was actually a pretty nice guy with this little blind spot. I had to chuckle, though, as I thought about what the reaction would be -- and how long my employment would last-- if I plugged in my laptop with a Church of The Big Invisible Guy screensaver or if one of engineers from further afield fired up a Koran screensaver. But James? He was in the norm.
Brad:
Quote:
General observation: The discussion has changed a bit now.. Earlier, it was suggested that putting a symbol on a card was a way of offending anyone who didn't fit that particular group and it was a way to claim superiority.
I don't know that it was argued that it was a (conscious) "way to offend anyone" even as I did say that *I* found some of it offensive. A way to claim superiority? I think canuckinLA touched on a confession that *sure* some of those obvious and not-so-obvious signs of pride are definitely about feeling superior on some level. It would be hell being at all opinionated if you didn't have some sense of being right whiel thinking others are wrong. With religious convictions, though, expressed through what feels like both high and low-grade proselytization to me -- the "Have a blessed day!" at the checkout counter or airport security checkpoint or the Amway-esque, out-of-place named-dropping of "well after church on Sunday" 30 times ina 3 minute business converstaion -- I defintely do get the sense of lot of people who just can't help let you know how lucky they are and how good they are. I often feel that these folks are trying to bolster or reassure themsleves. In the cases of "dry drunks" like our Mister Bush, I often think that they have dropped on addictive bahavior in favor of another. Oh well. Salvation is at least not known to cause liver failure.
CanuckinLA:
Quote:
Ultimately, what JeffS said about not decking himself out in religious symbols resonates with me. It's like that old adage that if you're good, and you know it, that you don't have to tell everyone, and can just go about being good at whatever it is. Everyone who matters knows you're good.
ka-ching.
wfaulk:
Quote:
Even then, I only complained about the practice, not the people, although I'll admit to a prejudice against the people who use that tactic. In my experience, they are the people I'd rather avoid. My wife tends to agree, even if she's somewhat less dogmatic about it than I am.
Perhaps to my detriment, I sometimes object to the pratice in principal, but then can't separate the people.
tfabris:
Quote:
If a fish on a business card gets them more customers, then more power to 'em. That's capitalism. If they're doing it for pride only, okay fine. Seeing the fish makes me, a potential customer, think consciously about their motives for putting it there, so I don't know if that's what they want or not. Maybe it is.
Of course, if they also exclude all non-Christians from their employed staff, then that becomes a completely different question. But a fish on a business card? Go for it. You'll piss a few people off, but probably make buddies with others. The people who get pissed off, you probably didn't want as a customer anyway.
... wait, or did you? Hm.
Intent versus percieved intent. It is tough. I expect our politicians to think about things like that. As you say , though, if somebody want to put *whatever* on their business card -- a flag burning, say! -- they should go for it....but they shouldn't get all bent out of shape at people's reactions.
Discrimination? I have hired 4-5 people over the past decade whose beliefs/views were 300 times closer to my estimates of Brad's or Jeff's beliefs than my own. Hired for what they could do. Thankfully, none of them blurted out "You should hire me because I am a Christian!" during the interview or I would have been in a big pot of moral-quandary hot water!
Quote:
Now we're into the question of... What reaction does it cause, regardless of the motive? And what if the result is a different reaction than they expected?
We live in complex societies. I don't think that there is any way to avoid thinking about how our actions are perceived to some extent. And, yes, I think it wouldn't hurt if some folks worked on a little more insight into their own motives.... The old saying "somebody who asks you about your religion? Well, they are usually interested in telling you about theirs!" comes to mind.
mccomb:
Quote:
If I find out in a casual way that my plumber is a religious man it in no way changes my opinion of him, but if I find out from his add or his business card it becomes an unnecessary and irrelevant part of his sales pitch. It's no different than my slimy car salesman trying to mimic my lifestyle and beliefs to ingratiate himself to me in the hopes that I'll buy a car from him now that he is my "friend".
Agreed.
Brad:
Quote:
This is really getting out of control here. Is your ideal world some sort of grey colored mix where nobody can identify themselves as anything or take pride in anything without being perceived as trying to offend of exclude a group that does not match that desciption?
I don't think I heard anybody say that but you.
Quote:
I think I'm done with Off Topic for a few months.
Well, that would be too bad.
_________________________
Jim
'Tis the exceptional fellow who lies awake at night thinking of his successes.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#234331 - 01/10/2004 09:48
Re: Poll: Bill Burkett
[Re: jimhogan]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
Quote:
Is Montgomery's "Little Girl" just a song? *I* certainly don't think so. What do you think?
I don't remember what I said the last time you brought this up, but I still really don't understand the offence. Does the song itself offend you, or does the fact that Montgomery sings it offend you? Country music is kind of a strange place where you can be wildely irrerverent in one song and thing sing about Jesus in the next and both things ressonate with listeners.
I seem to remember that you don't like the song because you feel like it paints ALL non-Christians as drug addicts and child abusers. I never would have gotten that sense from the song, but reading the first verse I sort of see where you could get that. I think the point of the first verse was not to say "the parents are bad because they aren't Christians," but to say "the girl never went to church so isn't it neat when she already knew who Jesus was first time she ever went to church?" I think that's what's supposed to make us nod and smile at the end of the song. If I were an atheist (totally guessing here), I'd think my reaction would be one of rolling my eyes, not offense. As it is, the reason I'm not crazy about the song is because it lacks credability. Montgomery is out there singing non-Christian songs and then for him to throw this one in just kind of belittles the point to me. Like "I think Jesus is cool when I have a cute story", but the rest of the time I don't really care about faith. But that's the way it is in country music. A lot of these guys don't write their own material so you get widely varying themes in their music. You can be getting drunk in one song and talking about sinners who drink in the next.
But to take this further, what do you think of Christian music? On point, that's pretty much all I write and I spend a LOT of my time doing it. My intention is to encourage other Christians in their faith and show non-believers what I consider to be the truth. If they started playing a song I wrote on the radio, would that be offensive? To be sure, my intention is not to make Christian music because it sells better (boy would that be a mistake!) but because it is just what comes out when I write.
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#234332 - 01/10/2004 11:57
Re: Poll: Bill Burkett
[Re: JeffS]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
Quote:
I still really don't understand the offence
The implication, intended or not, is that atheists are addicts who are likely to kill people and that Christians are nice folks. However, you're at least somewhat right in that country music is often about specific stories, and it could be seen in that light -- as the specific story of this little girl.
As to artists who travel back and forth between Christian-related songs and ones that are secular -- I find artists who pigeonhole themselves to be artistically reprehensible. Why have you chosen to only ever do one thing? What if you come up with a song that you feel strongly about -- let's say an anti-drug screed, to pick something that's probably also important to that crowd. Do you release it despite the fact that it has no direct relationship to religion? Do you keep it under wraps? Or do you shoehorn religion into it, despite the fact that it makes no sense for it to be there?
How do you feel about Amy Grant, who's had a career dominated by Christian music, but who has occasionally gone out and done secular pop stuff? Or any of the various gospel artists who travel back and forth between gospel and soul? Or U2, who are mostly a rock band, but who occasionally have a Christian-oriented song? Or the thousands of other bands who never mention religion at all? I suppose there are various types of people, from those whose religion is all-consuming to those who are religious, but have other aspects of their being, to those who are only slightly religious, to those who are areligious. Your notion that the idea that only occasionally mentioning religion is disingenuous strikes me as coming from a person who doesn't recognize that there are other people who have other aspects to their lives beyond religion. That doesn't necessarily make them liars or armchair Christians; it just means that they have other concerns, too.
On the other hand, I'm not a big fan of the having-someone-else-write-all-your-music scene. That in itself seems disingenuous to me, but that's another topic altogether.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#234333 - 01/10/2004 14:11
Re: Poll: Bill Burkett
[Re: wfaulk]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
Quote:
As to artists who travel back and forth between Christian-related songs and ones that are secular -- I find artists who pigeonhole themselves to be artistically reprehensible.
Well, let me clear this up. What I don’t like about the Montgomery song mentioned earlier is largely what you don’t like about fish on business cards. It seems like a “let me get sentimental about faith” kind of song to simply appeal to people who are religious. I could be wrong; I really don’t know his motives. But I don’t like when people kind of attach spirituality in an attempt to gain respect or a following. Talk about waffling! I guess I’m on the other side now. I suppose I don’t get the feeling that this song is an honest expression, and that bothers me.
As for other artists who do some spiritual stuff and other songs not, I think that’s cool. One of my favorite artists, David Wilcox, is excellent at that. I like U2, am not a big fan of Amy Grant, and have various feelings about the other “crossover” artists. But, as I’m sure you know, I also like plenty of music like Rush that doesn’t line up with Christianity at all. In general, I like music that is honest and deals with the convictions of the artist. Sometimes lyrics are just garbage and I like it because the music itself is great.
Quote:
Why have you chosen to only ever do one thing?
Because that’s all that comes out. I’ve honestly tried to write other stuff, but when I speak it’s about my closest held beliefs. I also must admit that I view the purpose of my music as greater than just writing songs, however I wouldn’t stifle a “non-spiritual” song just because it doesn’t mention God. I know of numerous examples of artists who I respect who’ve written songs without “God, Jesus, Holy Spirit” in them. I just haven’t written any (I am not a very subtle person, so I think that accounts for a lot of this). However, in the end whatever I write I will try to make as honest an expression as possible because that’s the reason I love to write and play- it’s a way to express myself.
So let me ask you, what is it that you find reprehensible about being singing only music about faith?
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#234334 - 01/10/2004 14:23
Re: Poll: Bill Burkett
[Re: JeffS]
|
addict
Registered: 24/07/2003
Posts: 500
Loc: Colorado, N.A.
|
Once again, Jeff, we're closer than you might think. Just as you suggested, my initial reaction to the first part of the song was to roll my eyes, but by the end, I'd decided that it was a cute country song, competently if somewhat melodramatically told.
As for a "suggestion" about non-Christians, isn't that like saying "The Sopranos" is a slur on all Italian-Americans? It's a story.
_________________________
-- DLF
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#234335 - 01/10/2004 16:10
Re: Poll: Bill Burkett
[Re: JeffS]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
First, let me clear up one thing. When I said "you" there, I should have said "one". I wasn't intending to single you out. Especially since I know nothing about your music writing beyond the fact that you do write Christian-themed songs without any knowledge of the percentage they make up of your catalog. Or at least I didn't when I wrote it.
The thing that I find reprehensible artistically is that, as an artist, it's your job to inspire thought, and when you choose to limit what you say, you choose to limit your expressiveness. I think that it undercuts the ability to create art. It's like deciding to be an author but refusing to use the letters 'F', 'M', and 'Q'.
On the other hand, if you honestly don't have any other subjects about which you care about enough to write a song, then that's a different matter. Then it's just coincidence. But I get the feeling from the widely publicized teen-oriented Christian rock concerts that if another theme came up, people would be confused. I suppose it'd be equally odd if someone played "The Ride of the Valkyries" in a Sunday morning service, though. I just think that limiting yourself as an artist or listener is a bad thing.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#234336 - 01/10/2004 16:36
Re: Poll: Bill Burkett
[Re: wfaulk]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 20/12/1999
Posts: 31600
Loc: Seattle, WA
|
Quote:
I suppose it'd be equally odd if someone played "The Ride of the Valkyries" in a Sunday morning service
Or uncannily appropriate, depending on the sermon.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#234337 - 01/10/2004 19:51
Re: Poll: Bill Burkett
[Re: wfaulk]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
Quote:
First, let me clear up one thing. When I said "you" there, I should have said "one".
Oh yeah. I should have understood that. My bad.
Quote:
The thing that I find reprehensible artistically is that, as an artist, it's your job to inspire thought, and when you choose to limit what you say, you choose to limit your expressiveness. I think that it undercuts the ability to create art. It's like deciding to be an author but refusing to use the letters 'F', 'M', and 'Q'.
I don't think most Christian artists explicitly limit themselves. It's more to do with the reason that they're writing in the first place. For me, I'd probably be writing music, Christian or not. I love music and I love the process of creating it, even more so than playing it. However, if I'm going to have words it has to be about something (well, OK technically that's not true, but it's at least a widely utilized option!). The music that resonates with me most is that which is about personal beliefs and so that's what I write about. That's one reason I like Rush so much: their music is very much about how they (or Peart at least) see the world. Even though I disagree with most of their views, it's a topic that really resonates with me. If I go back and read some less spiritual poetry I wrote in High School I can see that even then I was focused on the nature of mankind, what our purpose is, and other similar themes. As I grew spiritually my writing started showing greater and greater influences from my faith. Even if I were to write a love song (which I can't seem to do) it'd probably have some (perhaps not explicit) component of my faith involved.
I should mention, however, that there are Christian groups who write "non-Christian" (or “secular”) songs. Six Pence None The Richer had that song "Kiss Me" which as 0 to do with God, and yet there is little doubt in anyone's mind that they are a Christian band. They just happened to write a song about romance, not God. No big deal.
Quote:
But I get the feeling from the widely publicized teen-oriented Christian rock concerts that if another theme came up, people would be confused.
This is sort of true, and there' s a good reason for that. When people go to Christian concerts, generally they are going not just to hear a band but to worship or be encouraged in their faith. It's more than a musical experience- it's a time to fellowship with other believers and think upon the things of faith.
But I'd be remiss not to point out that often I go to Christian concerts and they play some secular tunes- the most notable of these being Jars of Clay doing "Girls Just Want to Have Fun", which was truly hilarious. Caedmon's Call also played a couple of secular tunes, one by the Beatles, at the very same concert.
To return back to the reason I play Christian music, I play music because I love music. It's Christian because it's part of who I am and I believe God can use it to encourage other believers. I have to think most artists who sing anything of substance find it the ultimate thrill to know that a song they've sung has touched someone deeply. I'd say this is probably true from Pearl Jam right on down to Michael W. Smith. Routinely after concerts I end up in conversations with people about the songs and they tell me how these have been an great encouragement. There's almost nothing better than this, and that to me is what artistic expression is all about: reaching out and touching people in a way that is beyond words and thoughts: deeply, emotionally, and meaningfully.
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#234338 - 01/10/2004 20:00
Re: Poll: Bill Burkett
[Re: wfaulk]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
Quote:
Your notion that the idea that only occasionally mentioning religion is disingenuous strikes me as coming from a person who doesn't recognize that there are other people who have other aspects to their lives beyond religion.
By the way, I hope I cleared up that this is not what I think at all. I actually resent the movement among some Christians that a song must have the requisite "God, Jesus, Holy Spirit" parts in order for it to be worth listening to. I'm far more interested in music that comes from the heart rather than something which fits a formula. I have many friends who will only listen to Christian music, which is fine for them (though often this begs the question of what IS Christian music), but only about a third of my library is Christian, explicit or not.
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#234339 - 01/10/2004 20:19
Re: Poll: Bill Burkett
[Re: JeffS]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
Sorry I misunderstood.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
Previous Topic
Index