Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Why can't I own a Canadian?


pellinore

Recommended Posts

Someone has cribbed most of that from the West Wing.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I've seen this before.

Never stops being funny though. 

Really highlights the absurdities of religion in an amusing way doesn't it. 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How much are Canadians anyway? Are there price ranges? 

Might get one or two. 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This satirical letter was debunked two decades ago by Snopes.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/letter-to-dr-laura/

Does the OP have an SR&B point they'd like to discuss? Besides the anti-semitism, I mean.

It is obvious that the author of the letter (Kent Ashcraft, May 2001 Playboy letters column, p. 62; with some changes after 23 years) is not sincerely describing his own religious beliefs, nor is there any evidence that Laura Schlessinger currently subscribes to the doctrines described, although she is Jewish and was at one time orthodox (as the more conservative varieties of Judaism are called).

I do not subscribe to her (long ago) views about homosexuality, but I also oppose bigotry. Parodying Judaism has a long history in the annals of anti-semitism.

Bigotry against gays, bigotry against Jews - same crap, different orifices.

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, pellinore said:

 And there I was thinking it was genuine.

No, it's perfectly clear that you knew that it was more than two decades old. Just as you knew that it has nothing to do with this section of the site.

Calling out the hypocrisy of those who cite Torah but don't know Torah is fine in SR&B. Calling out a Jewess by name for views she and her rabbi held more than 20 years ago by parading views neither of them ever held is not an SR&B matter.

I see in the news that anti-semitism is fashionable again. Surely you could have found something more recent to bait with.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, eight bits said:

No, it's perfectly clear that you knew that it was more than two decades old. Just as you knew that it has nothing to do with this section of the site.

Calling out the hypocrisy of those who cite Torah but don't know Torah is fine in SR&B. Calling out a Jewess by name for views she and her rabbi held more than 20 years ago by parading views neither of them ever held is not an SR&B matter.

I see in the news that anti-semitism is fashionable again. Surely you could have found something more recent to bait with.

I thought it was mocking religion generally, not a specific one. And I suppose in a serious way, I don't see religion as a joke, I see it as one of the great evils of the world.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see it as "mocking" anyone.   It simply points out the illogical inconsistencies of those who use ancient religious texts to justify a particular (bigoted) opinion whilst ignoring the same texts' messages about other issues.   

It means that (as I live in England, not the USA) if I want to own a few Scotsman as slaves and stone to death all the employees at my local supermarket who work on a Sunday, then I also should acknowledge that homosexuality is wrong.   If I don't, I would be a hypocrite.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, pellinore said:

I don't see religion as a joke, I see it as one of the great evils of the world.

I see people who use religion as a weapon to be evil. Not so much religion itself. 

  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, eight bits said:

This satirical letter was debunked two decades ago by Snopes.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/letter-to-dr-laura/

Does the OP have an SR&B point they'd like to discuss? Besides the anti-semitism, I mean.

It is obvious that the author of the letter (Kent Ashcraft, May 2001 Playboy letters column, p. 62; with some changes after 23 years) is not sincerely describing his own religious beliefs, nor is there any evidence that Laura Schlessinger currently subscribes to the doctrines described, although she is Jewish and was at one time orthodox (as the more conservative varieties of Judaism are called).

I do not subscribe to her (long ago) views about homosexuality, but I also oppose bigotry. Parodying Judaism has a long history in the annals of anti-semitism.

Bigotry against gays, bigotry against Jews - same crap, different orifices.

 

I never saw it as attacked Judaism because it's the Evangelicals who take Levititus serious, not the Jews I know. 

 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

I see people who use religion as a weapon to be evil. Not so much religion itself. 

I was brought up in a Pentecostal household. My father believed (amongst other things) that saying "For Christ's sake" was a sin, going to the cinema was a sin, sex was a sin (but necessary), and that people of Pentecostal faith could speak in tongues (glossolalia) and our family had blood links with Jews. Fortunately, I grew out of this nonsense.

It irritates me when Bible-thumpers try to stop other people enjoying a joke, or even just enjoying themselves.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Piney said:

I never saw it as attacked Judaism because it's the Evangelicals who take Levititus serious, not the Jews I know. 

I see theological arguments as pointless- how many angels can stand on the head of a pin, what is the true meaning of the Holy Trinity, and why did God speak through a burning bush? Who knows, and more to the point, who cares?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, pellinore said:

It irritates me when Bible-thumpers try to stop other people enjoying a joke, or even just enjoying themselves.

Looks like your problem not mine.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, pellinore said:

I was brought up in a Pentecostal household. My father believed (amongst other things) that saying "For Christ's sake" was a sin, going to the cinema was a sin, sex was a sin (but necessary), and that people of Pentecostal faith could speak in tongues (glossolalia) and our family had blood links with Jews. Fortunately, I grew out of this nonsense.

It irritates me when Bible-thumpers try to stop other people enjoying a joke, or even just enjoying themselves.

The Assemblies of God here believe the same thing but are more militant. They actually came into a museum I volunteered at and attacked us for "lying" about paleontology and geology.

Then back in the early 2000s there was a article in Indian Country Today where their missionaries came to a Algonquian Reserve, burnt down a Midi House and Pipe Keeper's residence. The RCMP would do nothing to them. 

  • Thanks 3
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Piney said:

I never saw it as attacked Judaism because it's the Evangelicals who take Levititus serious, not the Jews I know. 

That's part of the problem of dredging up 20+ year old stuff. In its time, the original versions of this (including the West Wing fictional version) were part of a primarily political debate about the rights of gay people.

Just as now, there were plenty of goyim who were suddenly experts on Torah speaking up for the LORD against gays, and injecting that into the political fray. Using religion as a weapon as @XenoFish said it so well just now.

Laura Schlessinger probably was "fair game" in the give-and-take of that political debate, because she was (and still is) a public figure, and she was vocally critical of homsexuality. She was also quite public, however, that her thinking on the subject was faith-based, and arrived at in actual consultation with her rabbi, not Leviticus for Dummies.

Time passes. A lot of time. She is Jewish, but not orthodox. Whatever her current views on gays may be, the turn-of-the-century political debates are settled now.

I completely agree that the views being parodied are more typically found among Evangelicals than ... well, than anybody else. But the OP presents them as Jewish views, and those of a living Jewess to boot.

Right now, literally today, is a great time to distinguish carefully among the Israeli state, the current Israeli government, and Jews in general. Baiting Jews with a 20+ year-old debating point is unhelpful. And even if it were the wisest contribution to the site, there is no SR&B issue here. If the aim is to criticize evangelicals, then why tag it to a named Jewess?

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, psyche101 said:

How much are Canadians anyway? Are there price ranges? 

Might get one or two. 

I'll sell you @jmccr8 for 20 quid and throw in one of my grandfather's cousins from the Grand River Reserve as your free gift.

Edited by Piney
brain fart
  • Haha 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, eight bits said:

That's part of the problem of dredging up 20+ year old stuff. In its time, the original versions of this (including the West Wing fictional version) were part of a primarily political debate about the rights of gay people.

Just as now, there were plenty of goyim who were suddenly experts on Torah speaking up for the LORD against gays, and injecting that into the political fray. Using religion as a weapon as @XenoFish said it so well just now.

Laura Schlessinger probably was "fair game" in the give-and-take of that political debate, because she was (and still is) a public figure, and she was vocally critical of homsexuality. She was also quite public, however, that her thinking on the subject was faith-based, and arrived at in actual consultation with her rabbi, not Leviticus for Dummies.

Time passes. A lot of time. She is Jewish, but not orthodox. Whatever her current views on gays may be, the turn-of-the-century political debates are settled now.

I completely agree that the views being parodied are more typically found among Evangelicals than ... well, than anybody else. But the OP presents them as Jewish views, and those of a living Jewess to boot.

Right now, literally today, is a great time to distinguish carefully among the Israeli state, the current Israeli government, and Jews in general. Baiting Jews with a 20+ year-old debating point is unhelpful. And even if it were the wisest contribution to the site, there is no SR&B issue here. If the aim is to criticize evangelicals, then why tag it to a named Jewess?

I've never watched the West Wing and had no idea the joke was politically incorrect. I just saw it literally this morning and thought it funny. But I stand by this:

 Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. Steven Weinberg

Here we are, having a discussion about politics, over something as nonsensical as religion. See what I mean?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, pellinore said:

I've never watched the West Wing and had no idea the joke was politically incorrect. I just saw it literally this morning and thought it funny. But I stand by this:

 Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. Steven Weinberg

Here we are, having a discussion about politics, over something as nonsensical as religion. See what I mean?

In real time I have a rule about not discussing people, politics or religion and that's all I hear now. So I just act like I'm listening or walk away. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, pellinore said:

Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. Steven Weinberg

Then you also have would be evil people doing good because of religious motivation. Self regulation through a divine onlooker, but nevermind that. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, XenoFish said:

Then you also have would be evil people doing good because of religious motivation. Self regulation through a divine onlooker, but nevermind that. 

That's an interesting point!  There are plenty of people, possibly reluctantly, doing evil because of religious conviction- burning innocent people as witches and heretics, or waging Holly War.

But are there any cases of people doing good due to religious conviction, more than an atheist would do through our normal empathy and compassion?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, pellinore said:

 

But are there any cases of people doing good due to religious conviction, more than an atheist would do through our normal empathy and compassion?

I doubt it. Religion is a driver for conflict.

Philanthropic behavior, between nations or individuals, does not need religion as a catalyst. 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, pellinore said:

more than an atheist would do through our normal empathy and compassion?

Why do you think atheist are more exalted than religious folks? People doing people things for people reasons. 

Quote

But are there any cases of people doing good due to religious conviction

Link I'm not doing your homework.

Quote

There are plenty of people, possibly reluctantly, doing evil because of religious conviction- burning innocent people as witches and heretics, or waging Holly War.

All of which had some religious aspect and also the human element as well. It's never cut-n-dry. Plus you seem to be digging into the past for your accusations. Sure there are religious idiots out there (along with atheist idiots). 

Plus your hatred is your own. 

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.