World is Falling Apart Thread (Locked forever)

[aaron]

there was a big rally at the statehouse today. things are really fucking weird here right now and i haven't met a single person who is in support of this law. liberal, conservative, gay, straight, whatever, everyone agrees it's bad for business and really just not a good look for indiana. but, then again, we live in the big city, and i'm sure there are plenty of people throughout the rest of the state who are more than happy with what's going on.

really not a good week to be a hoosier.

[MrPopo]

really not a good week to be a hoosier.

What the hell is the etymology of "hoosier" anyhow?

[jp1]

really not a good week to be a hoosier.

What the hell is the etymology of "hoosier" anyhow?

I think it has something to do with a bad joke about "Hoosier daddy?" during college fraternization.

[ashreii]

Yeah I'm embarrassed to live in Indiana. My cousin is gay. He's a very successful man

[Nemoide]

So to drift away from the current "hot topic" in the thread...

This is something that's been controversial in my area lately. A local school started celebrating foreign language week by having a student read the Pledge of Allegiance in Arabic as part of the morning announcements.

This has made people WAY MORE ANGRY than I would have ever thought. Even my highly-educated coworkers are expressing their opinion that the Pledge should only ever be read in English or that it's akin to using German during World War II. I just find this viewpoint to be... extremely misguided.
If patriotism was a concept I put a lot of stock in, I'd rather encourage people to speak the Pledge in a language they understand rather than to parrot the English as if there was some sort of religious significance to it. (My snarky response to anyone who does think there is a religious significance to the Pledge, who I would also assume are Christian, would be to ask them "do you also think it is inappropriate to read The Lord's Prayer in any language other than Aramaic or Greek?") Further, many Arabic speaking nations are allied with the US; to declare the language anathema represents a worrying misunderstanding of our international relationships.

Maybe this story isn't "the whole world falling apart" but that this is upsetting swaths of people just makes me a nervous about general attitudes of the public at large in the US...

[Luke]

But yeah, Luke is right.

I like what Luke said.

I think you are right about that Luke.

I'm jotting this date down.

[jp1]

But yeah, Luke is right.

I like what Luke said.

I think you are right about that Luke.

I'm jotting this date down.

Hey, even a broken clock my friend....

Or in my case a broken record.

[pepharytheworm]

So to drift away from the current "hot topic" in the thread...

This is something that's been controversial in my area lately. A local school started celebrating foreign language week by having a student read the Pledge of Allegiance in Arabic as part of the morning announcements.

This has made people WAY MORE ANGRY than I would have ever thought. Even my highly-educated coworkers are expressing their opinion that the Pledge should only ever be read in English or that it's akin to using German during World War II. I just find this viewpoint to be... extremely misguided.
If patriotism was a concept I put a lot of stock in, I'd rather encourage people to speak the Pledge in a language they understand rather than to parrot the English as if there was some sort of religious significance to it. (My snarky response to anyone who does think there is a religious significance to the Pledge, who I would also assume are Christian, would be to ask them "do you also think it is inappropriate to read The Lord's Prayer in any language other than Aramaic or Greek?") Further, many Arabic speaking nations are allied with the US; to declare the language anathema represents a worrying misunderstanding of our international relationships.

Maybe this story isn't "the whole world falling apart" but that this is upsetting swaths of people just makes me a nervous about general attitudes of the public at large in the US...

Intersting side note "under God" was added into the pledge of allegiance in 1954 by Eisenhower. Originally it was

I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Then

I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Then finally how we know it today. When Francis Bellamy wrote it he wanted it to be able to be used by any citizen in any country.

We don't even have an offical language acknowledged by the federal government.

[Exhuminator]

Or, in other words, prioritizing the privileged group (and make no mistake, christians absolutely hold a privileged position in American society) over the marginalized group is undesirable.

I missed pages of conversation today, but yeah that's what I was saying.

I do not understand how a same sex marriage hurts heterosexual Christians. Therefore I do not understand why Christian lawmakers would feel the need to block such a possibility. Nor do I understand how a Christian florist would think selling flowers to a same sex marriage wedding would somehow taint the florist's own faith in the eyes of God.

While I understand a Christian can feel the need to express their disdain for homosexuality based on the Bible's teachings, I do not understand any measure beyond that. If the Christian sees these things as the action of a "sinner", it is not the duty of the Christian to block the sinner's free will. God gave each of us free will, and that includes the will to sin. So while I totally understand if Christians gave speeches or performed marches denouncing homosexuality as a sin, I do not understand Christian lawmakers trying to block such a possibility outright. You can't force someone to live their lives under the ideals of a religion if that someone is not of that religion. Such an act is against liberty and freedom, core fundamentals of this country. Yet that is exactly what you are doing if you block same sex marriage under the notion of religious ideology. I mean if that's the case, why stop there? You might as well force people to be baptized upon birth based on the law as well.

As far as a Christian employee refusing their aid to a non-Christian, such as the florist incident, where does that end? Why stop with flowers? What if a group of Christian firefighters rushed to a burning home only to discover its occupants were a same sex couple? Would it be wrong of them then to refuse to extinguish the flames or rescue the homeowners on the grounds that their God does not approve of homosexuals? Of course they wouldn't do that, it'd be a sin in itself. Murdering someone by purposeful negligence is a sin after all. But then again, spiting someone is sinful as well. Does not the Bible say to love thy neighbor as thyself? So if thy neighbors are a gay couple getting married, what would Jesus do? I'm pretty sure he wouldn't turn his back on them if they needed some carpentry work. He'd help frame their door while providing an insightful metaphor clarifying his thoughts on their situation most likely.

Now let me set this straight. I am not attacking Christianity or Christians. I was a Christian for many years of my life actually. Someone might say that the ideas in Christianity are incorrect, but that doesn't mean they are outright attacking the religion. We are allowed to have different viewpoints calmly, isn't that what a forum is for? It's called a debate, not an attack. I am only presenting conundrums as I see them.

Lastly I do not believe homosexual people are "sinners" or are committing "sin". I was only using those phrases in a point of context, not out of personal belief.

[Blu]

I contemplated not getting married or postponing my marriage to my partner as a protestation to the injustice the LGBT community continues to experience today. It's one of the main reasons I didn't get married in any sort of church, aside from not feeling a strong connection to it in the first place.

Again, I'd like to point out that you are free and protected to practice whichever faith / belief system you'd like. The intersection and fail-safe that needs to be in place (and in Indiana's case, is not) laws cannot favor one group over another.

The law allows favoritism of Christianity (An already privileged institution in this country) at the expense of people who identify as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Questioning/Queer, Pansexual, etc, etc. This is all being done through the thinnest of veneers claiming religious freedom. It's not the cities that I worry about, it's the smaller, remote towns where being LGBT is already deathly scary and microaggressions / assaults / murders are still fairly common. It's certainly not helping the LGBT suicide rate, either.

I'd be interested though, if there's some legal statute that allows repeal of this law, besides the public pressure. Like an avenue of small business loans through the federal government, or grants. If a small business accepted federal money, does that put stipulations on what you can or cannot do? That sounds somewhat tyrannical reading it though.