Friday, July 29, 2005

General Blogosphere Snark

I just wrote a long, hilarious post rife with cheap shots that my linguist friend's POS pentium 2 just ate.

Here are the high points:


  • I'm taking a weekend vacation at my linguist friend's. (Was going to help Katy-the-wise move across town, but plans changed) I am hiding from weird stuff back in VA behind lots of books. I won't be posting as much because I am limited to the POS pentium 2 since when the CSO said "Don't forget to pack the power cord for your laptop" this morning, I said "uh huh," but didn't, you know, do it.

  • The people who are getting their UU Freedom Fighter rocks off by claiming that people are trying to "ban" religious language need to so seriously get a life. I'm sorry, I wrote this nicer the first time, but I am so frigging sick of hearing that I want to keep Bill Sinkford from speaking his mind. The list of things Sinkford has done that I find objectionable is indeed long, but using religious language isn't on it. I invite people to use whatever terms they think will work best for getting their ideas across. I've had an old atheist lady whom I adored give me hell for using religious language in a lay sermon. I argued right back and that was that. If you use religious langauge and someone gives you crap about it, you hereby have my permission to say "CC said to tell you that you can kiss my grits."

    That having been said, I don't think religious language always or even usually is the best language for getting our message across. I've stated why ad nauseum. Other people have disagreed and intelligently so. Read both sides, decide what you think and talk the way you think is best. If using a bunch of Christian language annoys lots of people and the people with whom Christian language resonates all turn out to be, well, Christians already going to the Christian church next door, then I did tell you so.

  • The UUAWO statement that basically says "We're not objecting to Roberts yet, but if he doesn't sound good to us, we're going to put out a STRONGLY-WORDED PRESS RELEASE. And we mean it!" is one of the DUMBEST things I've ever read. I'm sorry, I know UUs everywhere are delighted with their brave denomination's commitment to any social justice issue that boils down to "having an opinion," but that "thwack!" sound you're hearing is that statement hitting the trashcan of every elected official who received one.

  • The lady who wrote The article PB wanted comments on manages to both suck and be right on a lot of things. I hate it when columnists combine those two. Her tone is appalling, but the basic jists of her peice "fundamentalists make any religion suck" and "government support of religion just leads to insane uses of government funds" both seem right on to me. To take an example from our side of the pond, if the Boy Scouts want to not allow atheists, that's fine, but I don't see why they should be allowed special access to land that is paid for by atheist tax money.


CC

2 comments:

Shawn said...

That having been said, I don't think religious language always or even usually is the best language for getting our message across. I've stated why ad nauseum. Other people have disagreed and intelligently so. Read both sides, decide what you think and talk the way you think is best. If using a bunch of Christian language annoys lots of people and the people with whom Christian language resonates all turn out to be, well, Christians already going to the Christian church next door, then I did tell you so.

Sorry for the long quote, but I think that is some of the best - and simplest - logic I have read during this week's long and exauhsting conversation concerning this matter. Thanks.

PeaceBang said...

Wait! Who are the UU Freedom Fighters this week? I lost track! Is it the people who hate religious language or the whiners like me who don't want to be told not to use it?
ahmahgahd!

Also: love your remarks about the article by the Brit. Excellent use of the word "suck."