It Is A Dangerous Dichotomy When The Middle Ground Is A Tightrope Between Two Extremes

[runningforlife7]

I am posting this here for purely selfish reasons (to quote John Barth, not every motive of a writer is selfless), and mainly because i want it to be read by two specific individuals, namely Paci and Douglas

Comments

[runningforlife7]

I certainly agree with that whistling in the dark statement. And perhaps that is why most Americans fuel their arugments full of passion and emotion but very rarely stock them with facts. Facts can be embarrassing and awkward, but hell, as long as you're either turning red from anger or crying at the immensity of the "truth" you just uttered, no one will argue with you.

In regards to the rest of what you said. First off, my claim is that this negativity actually STEMS from a need for political correctness. Observe: You have PC which claims "every thing equally, equal repsect, etc. etc." Next you have a religious minority, Hell, it doesn't even have to be a true-blue minority, but anyone who feels their views are not adequately represented. People on campus feel challenged by the overt presence of Christianity. Now, for political correctness to win out the minority in question has one of two choices. He/She can make an EFFORT and give their own viewpoint (whether it be formal religion, atheism, agnosticism, etc.) more of a voice (we shall call this a Positive Equality..in that the presence of the minortity is INCREASED to create equality) OR he/she can lambast the minority, in this case, Christianity and bring it down to a more "acceptabele" outward appearance (This, obivously, is the Negative Equality.). Very very few people have the maturity or drive to do the former, and after all, isn't hating just THAT much easier? I have personally heard many times on campus individuals who feel threatened by the large presence of Christianity and who want to see it diminished somewhat. Boo hoo. Stop crying and propagate your own views for once. Getting back to the discussion of liberties, this view, this Liscence to Destroy, so to speak is quietly laying at the bottom of almost all discourse in this country. No one wants to take the time or effort to inform opposite parties of their viewpoint (in some fairness - a lot of times the opposite side does not want to take time to listen) but would rather make some snide comment in order to ensure that teh equality praised by Political Correctness is achieved. That this Negativity all stems from an itching need for equality I am firmly certain of.

Onto the rest of your entry., no, let me pause for a second. Alert readers will realize at this point that I too seem to be caryring a double edged sword. On one hand I say "Enough of this bashing of other's religions, propagate your own!" and yet on the other hand I say, or have said to myself and others "Deal with a lack of political correctness!!!!" This, however is the farthest thing from a dichotomy, as both these units are not only intertwined but find DEFINITION IN eachother!!
Allow me to explain:
I suppose even moreso than the popular view of religion, what I am railing against IS Political Correctness. Yet, like all things, an Idea in society is seen in many forms depending upon how far people take it. Some will shout from the rooftops an idea, yet for all their energy they will only lightyl have touched upon HALF of its main points! This is what we have with Political Correctness.

sorry, had to make it into 2

[runningforlife7]

There are two forms of political correctness which must be adressed. The first we will call, Incomplete or Immature. Incomplete just so I don't have to answer an comments that spring from emotional wells. People who follow an Incomplete Political Correctness shout that everything MUST be equal!!! Theyir interpretation of this creed is that, in order for things to be correct, things must be equal. These are the men who carry the double edged sword. They shudder when someone criticises a minority, and (this is the most important point) they shudder at a MAJORITY because a majority indirectly (in their view) CRITICIZES a minority! Therefore, in this warped perception, they taken it upoin themselves to lambast the Majority, thereby employing a Negative Equality. This is the Incomplete view because, as I do not need to show, it is riddled with paradoxes.
The second view, this Complete view of Political Correctness realizes that the basic cries of this doctrine stem from respect. Political Correctness does NOT equal Political Equality for these men (and yes, mentioning only men is an intenitonal joke, and explainign it in paranthesees is an intentional slap in the face to both myself and any reader who prepared to get outraged) but rather they realize the absurdity of trying to make everything equal, and with that they elevate themselves to a higher stnading in whcih Acceptance for all religions is shown through an ability to criticize, (whether jokingly or wiht intent) other religions. Thus, not being limited by feelings of "whistling in the dark", not being AFRAID to nudge anothert's viewpoint, is, in my opinion, THE HIGHEST FORM OF RESPECT FOR THAT VIEWPOINT.
This is where I apparently hold a dichotomy, but now it has been eliminated. I, myself, declare equality for all, yet I will frequently (as I am sure you have noticed) "attack" or "criticize" most religions, most viewpoints on anything actually, and to thsoe who readily take offense I say, Deal With it. That is because to me, these joking criticizations (and, they are not made blindly, nor are they made without an undercurrent of respect), these joking remarks, really propogate an undying love for the other viewpoint.

That being said, I would be very interested to know what the exact situation you refer to was in which you felt you needed to leave the room. No onbe should ever have to feel like that, and, one thing I have not adresse dof course is that there IS a line, independednt of whatever Political Correctness deems (but that has become much to warped to quantify), an emotional line that does deserve respect.

And on your final point, regaridng comments like that to a gay person, this is what I say: In the current context you are correct, but give this entire debate about gay marriage and gays in gneral like 20 years and you will be dead wrong.
It is the natural evolution of ideas, viewpoints, stances, if you will, that when they first come into the world they are heralded fiercely and with great cause. Men and women fight and die with tears in their eyes so that an Idea can be given life, so that a viewpoint may be justified. But like wiht all things, time makes us forget just how polemic these things are, just how important they were to a generation. When this happens, society's way of dealing with it, the way such beliefs are reinfused into the mainstream, is through joking. I could cite an instance from a russian professor who said that the way he knew the soviet union was beginning to crumble (he lived through quite a time in russia) was when people began making jokes about Stalin. This man killed millions of people....and they were making Jokes???
But it is the same with the Holocuast/Nazis (and isn't it funny how readers of this will shift uncomfortably at the word Holocaust, but at the word Nazi will immediatly think of some teacher or some bitter librarian who fits the mold), it is the same with wars, it is the same with religion.

3

[runningforlife7]

People fought and died for religion, thye still do...actually religion has an odd dichotomy. So many things arer specific JUST ot religion. It has gone through taht period of "lightening up" so to speak, it has been aroud long enough that jokes can still be made, but, unlike many other ideas it still is just as strongly present TODAY. and that is perhaps where that feeling comes from, that upset at jokes or comments on religion becuase it reall does play both parts, that of the accepted historical idea that can be joked about, and that of the New idea to a generation that is heralded in with tears and blood.
The issue of homosexuality, though not "new" by any circumstance, but certianly new in the public mindset of America, at least in this way, has to run this course. It may be hard to imagine now, but give it 20 years like I said, let there be a lightening of the load it carries, and I guarantee you you will see it dealt with in much the same wya.