(no subject)

[badstar]

You know it really frustrates me to no end to see anything that might be a "positive value"- love your neighbor, protect children from harm, etc referrred to as "christian values" and then if you happen to comment to that extent, you're on a soapbox, or you have an axe to grind.

You'd be frustrated too, if all the things that you agreed were good, were commonly referred to as being held in monopoly by a single religion other than your own.

note...this isn't in reference to livejournal, so don't go looking through my friends list for posts to bitch at.

edit: what I actually intended to be the point of my post, but didn't realy word it as to indicate it cleary was the fact that so often, if someone says somethign about this, then they're automatically assumed to be up on a soapbox or had an axe to grind. As for the instance in question, I honestly had never even metntioned the idea of referring to any positive values exclusively as Christian, a I had done at the time was to ask another poster to clarify something that she had said...and I made it clear that I was asking for clarification of somehting BEFORE I posted anything in response. I literally said "Before I post in response, I'd like to ask you to clarify what you mean by....Because depending on you answer, I may or may not have somehting to say."

Now the person in question did clarify...and acknowledged that what she said was not necessarily the best way to put it, and everyhtign was find in talking to her, but a few other posters just jumped in before I said anything and started on about how some people just can't resisting grinding the axe every chance they get. What annoyed me most was that this is a topic that I have NEVER mentioned in that particular forum, and the ones who made those comments, were a couple of the most frequent responders to other things that I HAVE posted.

Comments

[fuego.livejournal.com]

you, Rich are one person.

and, I have never assumed an intent to excue. as you quoted me saying, "intentionally or not"...this leaves possibility for either, but assumes neither.


Now, I mean no offense to you, but plese stop repeating back to me what I have already said to begin with as if I had never even thought if it. I am not offended, I simply believe that in certain contexts, certain things should not be attributed to a single group when it is not in exclusive posession, no matter how common. No it won't change overnight, nor do I expect it to but I think it perfectly reasonable to expect that people learn that theyre not alone in this world, and we may have more in common than they know or care to admit.

And once again: my point..which I did a bad job of making clear, but had edited the post to better explain, was that of the assumption that i'm going to hop up on a soapbox, simply because I asked someone to clarify somethign that they said, as I have often had assumed in such situations.

[saratoga80.livejournal.com]

I suppose that is the difficulty with connontation and the Internet then. Your words, to me, seemed to indicate that a Christian had intended to exclude you by use of the term. Certainly, your fustration with the term lends much credence to said belief.

I quite agree that people ought to be more cognizant, but I think it's best to realize most people aren't cognizant ofthat which they don't have to be cognizant of...

As to repeating what you said, that's the way I make an argument: repeating assertion and then rebutting it. It's the old Lincoln-Douglas debate team in me. My apologies.