Contested Symbols

[Birdy]

i'm not enjoying the warm glow of burning books! that's pretty much what i'm saying here... books were burnt for the words that were inside of them, because at one point those words were considered to be offensive, and really did require a societal change in attitude for them to be 'ok'. i'm TRYING to show that we've been down this road once before and that pretending these things don't exist, won't make them go away!!

Which brings me to this:

Are there not occasions for you where you would not use certain words in order to not offend anyone? I would think that you do self-censor, like everybody with a conscience does, so I'm not sure where this is all coming from, unless it's a kind of libertarian thought-experiment.

I guess if you want to call it a libertarian thought experiment, you could. I do practice self-censorship, but really do wish that we didn't have to (to the degree that it's being taken these days). i think we'd all move closer to a state of daisy chains around the sun if we didn't have to to keep 'who we are' behind closed doors. it just seems so wrong to me to say to someone 'you can't do that on public property, but behind those four walls you call your home, you can do whatever you want!'. what's being 'solved' here guys? do you really think that because you can't see discrimination, that it doesn't exist? really?

and then when does it really stop? when all evidence of Christianity has completely disappeared? when even those last remaining lights are all turned off, the wreaths taken down, the carolers muted? what's the end point here? when will we all FINALLY be equal??

though images of book burning perhaps are not the most postively persuasive technique.

ok.. maybe we should take a little inspiration from this guy:

[Birdy]

Birdy, way to Godwin the thread!

hehee! i missed this.

thank you, thank you! it feels good to belong to the 'club'!

[Birdy]

i don't really understand the "it's just a word" argument. i use the following example because of a disturbing "discussion" i had with some grade 11 students today - how about the word "fag"? or "homo"? or "that's so gay"? those may be just words, but they certainly hurt people.

oh, i must have missed this too.. sorry meggo.

with any one of those words there was a start point where they assumed their negative connotation, so there must be an end point too. i'm looking to find the end point!

[ollie]

6. Taxpayer money should not be spent to erect Nativity scenes in public places, because they play only to the religious aspect of the holiday. The messsage on the side of the Hamilton escarpment should be "Happy Holidays", not "Merry Christmas". Everyone pays taxes, so it is ridiculous to use taxpayer money to celebrate a holiday that isn't observed by everyone.

I heard an interesting point on the radio this morning that I've been mulling.

How do you feel about taxpayer money going to pride celebrations? Some people I talk to aren't happy about this and use similar language in decrying it, "I don't want this lifestyle shoved down my throat", much like some of you don't want the carols and nativity scenes forced down yours in a public setting.

And now I'm starting to think about the various cultural festivals around town and if they receive taxpayer money.

I really do find myself sympathizing with the Christian point of view in the sense that it is becoming more and more marginalizing to express it.

[d_rawk]

i'm not enjoying the warm glow of burning books! that's pretty much what i'm saying here... books were burnt for the words that were inside of them, because at one point those words were considered to be offensive, and really did require a societal change in attitude for them to be 'ok'. i'm TRYING to show that we've been down this road once before and that pretending these things don't exist, won't make them go away!!

Yes, I know ... I was teasing about the book bit

Books were burnt because they were heretical, were anti-traditional, or expressed ideas contrary to the ideas held by the mob. From my perspective you are apologizing for the mob, so I was turning your analogy on its head.

I really do find myself sympathizing with the Christian point of view in the sense that it is becoming more and more marginalizing to express it.

Me too. But I think that this is entirely the wrong way to redress that. People are anxious to marginalize it because it has been so pervasively dominant in all sorts of forms for so long. Desperately trying to maintain and entrench that dominance is not going to inspire tolerance or sympathy.

Shit, Birdy, I forgot to answer your question. The bit quoted a few posts back came from here

More from Boston:

[...]

But like all ham-fisted bullies, Chairman Falwell faces difficulties keeping his retailers in line. Like back-sliding children who just can’t manage to be good even though they know Santa is watching, some companies appear to be having trouble meeting the demands of the Christmas Police.

Macy’s department stores are on the “Nice†list, for example, for putting “Merry Christmas†on the company Web site. But just two days ago, three full-page red-and-white Macy’s ads ran in The Washington Post that were clearly designed to spur holiday shopping – yet the word “Christmas†did not appear once!

Falwell and Liberty Counsel head Mat Staver clearly have their work cut out for them. It’s a hard job enforcing a religiously correct Christmas in a nation of 300 million people and, according to one source, 574 million MasterCards and Visas. So many store clerks, so little time. And I should note that many, many business don’t appear on either the “Naughty†or “Nice†list. For instance, has anyone even checked to see what exactly Meineke Mufflers is up to at this time of year?

In all seriousness, there is something very sad about watching fundamentalist Christian organizations, whose leaders claim to take faith so seriously, making a fuss over what’s going on at the local mall – and believing they are keeping Christ in Christmas while doing so. If Jesus were to come back this year, the last place you would find him would be the modern temples of conspicuous consumption known as shopping malls. (Look for him instead at the soup kitchen, the homeless shelter or the children’s home.)

What should the legions of outraged, “war-on-Christmas†fanatics be doing? Instead of obsessing about L.L. Bean’s Web site, maybe they should look for the real meaning of Christmas in some other places instead.

Perhaps a lesson from that wise old philosopher Dr. Seuss is in order. After taking all of the trappings of Christmas from the Whos, the Grinch was shocked to see them join hands and celebrate the holiday anyway. Seuss writes:

And the Grinch, with his grinch-feet ice-cold in the snow,

Stood puzzling and puzzling: "How could it be so?

It came without ribbons! It came without tags!

"It came without packages, boxes or bags!â€

And he puzzled three hours, till his puzzler was sore.

Then the Grinch thought of something he hadn't before!

"Maybe Christmas," he thought, "doesn't come from a store.

"Maybe Christmas...perhaps...means a little bit more!"

Ironically, it is Falwell, Staver and their ilk whose actions make a mockery of what Christmas is supposed to represent. People of faith who really value Christmas as a season of peace and goodwill would never use it to bash others, divide Americans, advance personal agendas or raise funds. (This year, Falwell began carping about the “War on Christmas – and soliciting funds to fight it – two weeks before Halloween.) True fans of Christmas don’t use a day they consider holy and sacred to advance a misguided “culture war.†They don’t arrogantly demand that everyone celebrate the holiday in the same manner or using the same language.

For those believers who truly seek it, the true meaning of Christmas always comes through. Some find it while joining in a community of like-minded believers in a house of worship. Others experience it while serving meals at a soup kitchen. Still others find it surrounded by extended family and friends. Only the most vacuous among us are denied those joys because local retailers used the “wrong†terminology in their sale circulars.

Like the Whos down in Whoville, the real meaning of Christmas comes to those who want it “without packages, boxes or bags†– and it surely comes no matter what type of salutation K-Mart puts on its Web site.

[djmelbatoast]

Words are not just a random sequence of letters. They have meaning. Just because the meaning changes doesn't mean it is meaningless. The suggestion that fag and homosexual can be interchanged is ignorant and offensive. Can african-canadian and nigger be exchanged as well? What about female and cunt?

Words have meaning and so does a nativity scene at city hall. This isn't about burning books at all. Also, I would love to see the day when O, Canada is not sung in schools. We brain wash children enough without force feeding them patriotic nonsense as well. Should children not learn about the positive(and negative) aspects of their country before pledging undying loyalty to its flag?

[Birdy]

Yes, I know ... I was teasing about the book bit

Books were burnt because they were heretical, were anti-traditional, or expressed ideas contrary to the ideas held by the mob. From my perspective you are apologizing for the mob, so I was turning your analogy on its head.

interesting! from my perspective, you sympathize with the 'mob'!! let's not forget who or what is being attacked, and who it's attacker is.

[Birdy]

Words are not just a random sequence of letters. They have meaning. Just because the meaning changes doesn't mean it is meaningless. The suggestion that fag and homosexual can be interchanged is ignorant and offensive. Can african-canadian and nigger be exchanged as well? What about female and cunt?

Words have meaning and so does a nativity scene at city hall. This isn't about burning books at all. Also, I would love to see the day when O, Canada is not sung in schools. We brain wash children enough without force feeding them patriotic nonsense as well. Should children not learn about the positive(and negative) aspects of their country before pledging undying loyalty to its flag?

i don't think you understand me.

i'm not suggesting that these words don't have meaning! of course they have meaning... i suggest we look at how they gained their negative connotations and look towards reversing that. a fag to you is a cigarette to another guy. someone in mongolia might not even know what you're talking about. ALL words were once random sequences of alphabet. They were invented at some point. They were 'assigned' their meanings and as society changes, so do their meanings. Why is it ok for an african american to say the word 'nigger', and it's not ok for a caucasian person to say it? don't you find that hypocritical?

my point is the longer we uphold these barriers between us, the longer they exist.

[meggo]

Also, I would love to see the day when O, Canada is not sung in schools. We brain wash children enough without force feeding them patriotic nonsense as well. Should children not learn about the positive(and negative) aspects of their country before pledging undying loyalty to its flag?

ooo! maybe we should have a new-national-anthem-writing contest.

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

ooo! maybe we should have a new-national-anthem-writing contest.

"O Canada/ Our home on Native land..."

[d_rawk]

let's not forget who or what is being attacked, and who it's attacker is.

*sigh*

I don't think there is an easy answer to that, actually.

It's funny, y'know, because I read some of your posts above and as is often the case, we actually seem to picture something of the same ideal destination. We just - as usual - disagree on how to get there.

If I had to distill my position into a soundbite, it would be this: Systemic favouritism is toxic, and makes quick enemies of the favoured. What's more, it isn't self-correcting, but rather self-perpetuating until identified and deliberately corrected for.

We probably don't share that position, though, and that's where all sorts of disagreements come in. In fact I won't be surprised if you see in it the same seeds from which affirmative action grew. And you'd be right. And I'm too worn out from this thread already to continue the debate down that road.

For me, the sooner people are ready to give up their sense of entitlement that all things should be their way and that others should be doing it their way too, the sooner we'll be able to get on with all doing our things in peace and not getting our backs up about it all. O'Reilly and Falwell and all the other sensationalists are going to have to shut the fuck up (not going to happen) or be taken a whole lot less seriously (one can hope) before people feel safe enough to let down their guard.

Like I said somewhere earlier in the thread, I think that we tend to over-react to "the other side's" over-reactions, and on and on it goes. I know that I am certainly guilty of that. And I know that my patience was thoroughly exhausted on the whole "war on Christmas" thing last year, and that has probably affected my attitude about this whole discussion.

I don't think anyone or anything is being attacked, really, I guess. But in that we differ, too.

We keep all trying to stake out more and more ground in defense of what we see as each other's aggressiveness. I suppose that rather than trying to jealously guard our territory, we might instead do better to concede it when we can. We might get further along, more quickly, by making concessions to each other that way. (not you and I personally ... although probably there too ... but I mean this more broadly). But then I run into the problem: the "defenders of Christmas" don't want to get further along, they want to dig in their heels and keep me stuck there with them. And in this perception, I'm sure that we differ again.

It seems intractable. But you're fun to argue with. Even when you make my blood boil.

Edited December 10, 2006 by Guest
I think I mean to say systemic, not official

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

i'm not suggesting that these words don't have meaning! of course they have meaning... i suggest we look at how they gained their negative connotations and look towards reversing that. a fag to you is a cigarette to another guy. someone in mongolia might not even know what you're talking about. ALL words were once random sequences of alphabet. They were invented at some point. They were 'assigned' their meanings and as society changes, so do their meanings. Why is it ok for an african american to say the word 'nigger', and it's not ok for a caucasian person to say it? don't you find that hypocritical?

my point is the longer we uphold these barriers between us, the longer they exist.

I'd think this gets us into the hopelessly murky world of denotation vs. connotation. You're not suggesting we all speak the same language, with precisely the same associations for all the words? That would fly in the face of millennia upon millennia of human evolution.

I think it was Nietzsche who once suggested that language was first conceived not for accurately describing the world, but for lying about it. I'm with him on that; it takes terrific energy to be honest and genuinely interpersonal in communication.

If somebody who's black wants to call him- or herself a nigger, or a homosexual a fag or dyke, that's their business. They'll know, more than me, what they're talking about. I'm not going to dare use the same language, though, unless I'm on good and clear terms with them, and they know that I have some sense of their experience, and that I'm not intending it out of the context of all the kinds of violence that have come with those terms.

It's that dimension that seems to be completely absent in this whole business of clamping down on others' symbols.

Edited December 10, 2006 by Guest
redaction

[hamilton]

6. Taxpayer money should not be spent to erect Nativity scenes in public places' date=' because they play only to the religious aspect of the holiday. The messsage on the side of the Hamilton escarpment should be "Happy Holidays", not "Merry Christmas". Everyone pays taxes, so it is ridiculous to use taxpayer money to celebrate a holiday that isn't observed by everyone.[/quote']

I heard an interesting point on the radio this morning that I've been mulling.

How do you feel about taxpayer money going to pride celebrations? Some people I talk to aren't happy about this and use similar language in decrying it, "I don't want this lifestyle shoved down my throat", much like some of you don't want the carols and nativity scenes forced down yours in a public setting.

And now I'm starting to think about the various cultural festivals around town and if they receive taxpayer money.

I really do find myself sympathizing with the Christian point of view in the sense that it is becoming more and more marginalizing to express it.

If the government wanted to use public funds to create public displays of approximately equal size and value to celebrate *all* religious holidays and festivals, perhaps I would have a diferent opinion. But that solution is practically and financially untenable.

As for the pride parades and other cultural festivals, I have no problem with them because they are not religious in nature. Whether it is cast in stone in the constitution or not, church and state *should* be separate. The pride and ethnic culture festivals help to celebrate our differences and similarities by showcasing *minorities*. Why don't we have a "Straight Parade?" Because *every* day is straight day!

I have no problem with Christians expressing their Christianity, as long as they are not spending public money to do it - particularly if other religious groups do not have similar access to public funds for the same purpose. Put up a tree, hang up your lights, go carolling in public - it's all cool with me.

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

As for the pride parades and other cultural festivals, I have no problem with them because they are not religious in nature.

This raises the the problem, though, of there being no common definition anywhere for "religion".

[hamilton]

As for the pride parades and other cultural festivals' date=' I have no problem with them because they are not religious in nature.[/quote']

This raises the the problem, though, of there being no common definition anywhere for "religion".

Maybe not, but I'm sure that homosexuality isn't a religion, nor does being Italian or Greek constitute being a member of a religion.

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

Maybe, but there are rituals centred around identity and practice that raise that into question.

[hamilton]

Maybe, but there are rituals centred around identity and practice that raise that into question.

In what way? Do you mean that because many Greeks are Eastern Orthodox Christians that promoting a Greek festival week on the Danforth is an indirect promotion of Eastern Orthodoxy?

Or that simply partaking of the customs of being Greek constitutes a religion in itself, regardless of any spiritual beliefs?

By that definition, I am experiencing a religious moment every morning when I have that necessary extra-large coffee. Likewise my weekly viewing of Hockey Night in Canada.

Is it so hard to distinguish between a religion and a ritual?

Edited December 11, 2006 by Guest
Inability to proofread.

[MasterShake]

All this talk about the meaning of word reminds me of a conversation in a quaint little movie I saw about a couple of clerks

Randal Graves: Since when did "porch monkey" suddenly become a racial slur?

Dante Hicks: When ignorant racists started saying it a hundred years ago.

Randal Graves: Oh bullshit. My grandmother used to call me a 'Porch monkey' all the time when I was a kid because I'd sit on the porch and stare at my neighbors.

Dante Hicks: Despite the fact that your grandmother might've used it as a term of endearment for you, it's still a racial slur. It'd be like your grandmother calling you a little kike.

Randal Graves: No it is not. Plus my grandmother had nothing but the upmost respect for the Jewish community. When I was a kid, she'd always tell me to treat the Jewish kids well or they'd put the sheeny curse on me.

Dante Hicks: WHAT THE FUCK, MAN?

Randal Graves: What?

Dante Hicks: Sheeny is a racial slur, too!

Randal Graves: No it is not.

Dante Hicks: Yes, it is!

Randal Graves: Well, she never called any Jew, sheeny, she just used to say sheeny curse a lot. It was cute.

Dante Hicks: It wasn't cute, it was racist!

Randal Graves: I disagree, man, she was just an oldtimer. That's the way people talked back then. Didn't mean they were racist. - But, my grandmother did refer to a broken bottle once as a "nigger knife" once. - You know, come to think of it, my grandmother was kind of a racist.

Dante Hicks: You *think*?

Randal Graves: [indignant] Well, I still don't think "porch monkey" should be considered a racial term. I mean, I've always used it to describe lazy people, not lazy black people! I think if we really tried, we could reclaim "porch monkey" and save it.

Dante Hicks: It can't be saved, Randal! The sole purpose for its creation - the only reason it exists in the first place - is to disparage an entire race. And even if it could be saved, *you* can't save it, because you're not black!

Randal Graves: [smug] Well, listen to you, telling me I can't do something because of the color of my skin. You're the racist!

[Dante storms off in a huff]

Randal Graves: I'm taking it back, you watch!

[d_rawk]

MasterShake -- levity! Thanks.

Hamilton -- marry me

Two weeks-ish from now, I'm going to party like its the New York Christmas riot of 1828 all over again. In Calgary with my sisters.

And for better or for worse, the ADF's website is back online. Sign up to receive a free "The Truth about Religious Expression at Christmastime" pamphlet by calling 1-877-TELL-ADF. That's one, eight, seven, seven, TELL as in TATTLETALE, A-D-F. Spreading the Truth with a capital-T since 1994.

Work is over. I'm drunk. Heck yeah.

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

Thanks for that link, d_rawk - somehow I'd let myself forget about those characters (shudder).

Hamilton - I think what I was trying to get at was the chronic and maybe insurmountable difficulty coming to a clear definition of religion; this is the inside "secret" within Religious Studies (well, they make no secret of it themselves, but it's often used as a reason for shutting down departments in a number of universities, that they can't define what it is exactly that they're studying). Is religion to be defined functionally - i.e., what "religion" does, how it works on or does for individuals and societies - or is it to be defined essentially - i.e., what properties is has or shares in common among a variety of traditions?

The usual example that gets trotted out, of course, is Buddhism, which some people would rather treat as a philosophy in some of its forms, while others will point to the metaphysics and the ritual in much of it. But the history of all that comes from how "religion" as a word evolved in early European modernity from an attitude to life (commitment to a certain tradition - namely, Christianity) to a term to classify other traditions that looked like Christianity. That was still only possible where there was an attitude of openness and inquiry, which was part and parcel of the Renaissance; there's always been a stubbornness in many places, though, where people refuse to grant the status of "real religion" to traditions other than their own (I still get a kick out of students who would use phrases like "Christians and Catholics" in their essays).

Is it so hard to distinguish between a religion and a ritual?

So, yes. And then we get into that hopelessly nebulous world that comes with the world "spiritual". I mean, what does that word mean, to put a fine point on it?

In the world of law, religion has to meet certain criteria, like having an adequate pedigree, some discernible metaphysics, a charter of sorts, identifiable congregants, governors, and so on, but the more I think about it, the more frustrated I get by that conservatism, since it seems to generate as many problems as it tries to solve. If I had my druthers, I'd have psychedelics classified as religious sacraments, and have jambands get all the perks that organised religions get for what they do for their audiences.

Sorry if I'm prattling; I'm trying to avoid getting down to my marking .

[Davey Boy 2.0]

there should be a Pedantique forum

[ollie]

I'll have to get back into Lowell Green-induced morning nausea mode next week when I'm done classes.

I think even better than Lowell Green is Mark Sutcliffe in Michael Harris' spot trying to talk logic with the Green beanies. He's really good at remaining calm and having an answer for every ridiculous scenario they throw at him. Pity it's over now.

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

there should be a Pedantique forum

A subforum in Politics for easily distracted people spinning convoluted, verbose, and circular webs of logic? In! Dibs on moderator (or at least regular contributor) .

[hamilton]

In the world of law, religion has to meet certain criteria, like having an adequate pedigree, some discernible metaphysics, a charter of sorts, identifiable congregants, governors, and so on, but the more I think about it, the more frustrated I get by that conservatism, since it seems to generate as many problems as it tries to solve.

I understand everything you are saying from scholarly and etymological standpoint, and I can even agree; but the *legal* standpoint is the one that concerns me here, because there needs to be *some* kind of legal definition, otherwise we are in a bit of a problem. If we take the position that government should be entirely separate from religion and make no contributions to any of them, then your definition (or lack thereof) means that the government cannot fund *any* group at all (whether based on culture, interest, sport, etc), because they could theoretically be considered a religion. Conversely, if the government should sponsor all religious groups equally, then your definition would require that the government hand out funds to any wacko or group of wackos who ask for them because you can't tell them (the applicants for funds, that is) that what they practise is not a religion.

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

You're very right - that's exactly the problem, and that's what recognised religious groups are going to exploit as well as they can at the expense of others that might well be understood as "religious" groups in the more circumspect sense of the word. (And still, universities continue to threaten Religious Studies departments, who might be able to contribute to figuring out what it is that they study in some workable way.)

Why government funds people locked in their own delimited fantasy worlds (and I'm not trying to be facetious with that) is beyond me, aside from trying to keep the status quo as best it can. Yes, they serve useful functions (and governments are typically functionalistically oriented), but so too are all sorts of other social groupings, and you're right, there would be way too many of those for funding them to ever be practical.

Just thinking out loud here, but maybe a practical middle ground would be government restricting funding to religious groups committed to ecumenical or interfaith directions.

(Hahahahahahahahahahah!! Sorry, must be the wine talking. What was I thinking.)