Religious material in caches

[Mushtang]

 

My experience makes me wonder... how many of the folks in this debate have ever actually found religious tracts in caches?

 

I see them all the time, plastic 10 commandments coins, flattened pennies with the same or even prayers.

 

But the worst are those fliers damning you a sinner if you don't accept some dude name Jesus as your saviour.

 

I CITO them all.

 

Are you not capable of showing respect?

Hey, he didn't flatten the pennies, someone else did.

Just because some rare person leaves a penny in a cache doesn't mean people can start slamming mine and many others' beliefs.

I didn't see any slamming of beliefs in the quoted posts. I saw a slam against the tracts that are so harsh on the reader if they don't share the same beliefs as the tract author.

 

I've never left something like that in a cache and I never will. So why should I and others be attacked?

Where were you attacked?

 

Where are the defenders now?

If you're referring to the Defenders of Everything Lame, we're still here. Would you like us to defend your beliefs?

[+TrailGators]

I've never left something like that in a cache and I never will. So why should I and others be attacked?

Where were you attacked?

OK, let's start with you. Weren't you the one cracking jokes about the Pope? What's that have to do with tracts put into a tiny fraction of caches? Edited August 13, 2008 by TrailGators

[+KBI]

I've never left something like that in a cache and I never will. So why should I and others be attacked?

Where were you attacked?

OK, let's start with you. Weren't you the one cracking jokes about the Pope?

TrailGators is the Pope?

 

Hooda thunkit.

[Mushtang]

I've never left something like that in a cache and I never will. So why should I and others be attacked?

Where were you attacked?

OK, let's start with you. Weren't you the one cracking jokes about the Pope? What's that have to do with tracts put into a tiny fraction of caches?

I would miss these gems if people weren't quoting you so I'd see them.

 

You'll have to elaborate a little and explain how a reference I made to an old joke is an attack on TrailGators.

[+TrailGators]

I've never left something like that in a cache and I never will. So why should I and others be attacked?

Where were you attacked?

OK, let's start with you. Weren't you the one cracking jokes about the Pope?

TrailGators is the Pope?

 

Hooda thunkit.

When you attack someone's beliefs or a key figure with their beliefs then you are attacking them. I would never think of cracking jokes about Mohamed, Buddah, etc. because I'm respectful of others beliefs. I'm surprised that you guys don't understand this. You seem to understand it very well when it comes to film cannisters.... Edited August 13, 2008 by TrailGators

[+KBI]

I've never left something like that in a cache and I never will. So why should I and others be attacked?

Where were you attacked?

OK, let's start with you. Weren't you the one cracking jokes about the Pope?

TrailGators is the Pope?

 

Hooda thunkit.

When you attack someone's beliefs or a key figure with their beliefs then you are attacking them. I would never think of cracking jokes about Mohamed, Buddah, etc. because I'm respectful of others beliefs. I'm surprised that you guys don't understand this. You seem to understand it very well when it comes to film cannisters....

So what you're saying is ... that when you, TrailGators, make a snarky comment about lamp post micros in general ... that you ALSO intend it to be a personal insult against every individual who enjoys finding or hiding a lamp post micro?

[+KBI]

When you attack someone's beliefs or a key figure with their beliefs then you are attacking them. I would never think of cracking jokes about Mohamed, Buddah, etc. because I'm respectful of others beliefs.

... and you’re also saying that it’s okay for you to make snarky and insulting comments about other people’s beliefs, but not okay when you think others are making jokes about yours?

[+KBI]

I would never think of cracking jokes about Mohamed, Buddah, etc. because I'm respectful of others beliefs.

Just because someone believes something is not, in and of itself, enough reason for me to respect that belief.

 

Same with you, I’ll bet. There are many things which other people happen to believe that I doubt you would respect.

 

Do you withhold making jokes about the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Do you avoid cracking wise about J. R. Bob Dobbs?

 

Some folks actually worship the Devil, TG. In earnest. Do you honor those people with the same respect you reserve for Muslims and Buddhists?

 

There are even some who believe that anyone who doesn’t share their particular flavor of faith must be killed. Sure, they are a minority -- but they nevertheless deeply and sincerely believe that for all non-believers, death is better than maintaining an infidelity to their diety. Do you respect their beliefs, TG?

 

I think I'm beginning to see Flask's viewpoint on this tract thing.

 

Respect must be earned. It cannot be demanded. Respect from others does not automatically come pre-packaged and bundled with each and every thing that some person somewhere decides to call “faith” or “religion” or “belief.”

 

I have my own personal set of beliefs about the universe. I didn’t choose my beliefs. They chose me. What I believe is what I believe – I cannot simply tell myself to believe something different. It doesn’t work that way. I keep an open mind, I consider the available evidence, and I make my conclusions as to what is true and what is made-up.

 

You have made plain your level of respect for my beliefs. You say you are "respectful of others' beliefs" – but I see your respect only goes so far.

[+Gipsie]

 

i have in no place advocated censorship and i resent being told that i do. the question was whether or not it is rude to leave these things in caches, not whether or not there ought to be a rule against it. sometimes the best way to change rude behaviors is by education and discussion.

 

a person suffering from the delusion that they are doing all of us a service by this rudeness may not have seriously considered the damaging nature of the message that comes with it. they may be immersed in a culture in which this sort of intolerance is seen as normal, and they need to have their assumptions shaken up and challenged robustly.

 

cultural arrogance leads to someone getting squashed. trouble is the people doing the squashing have a tendency to believe they're elevating.

It would be easy to assume that this was written about someone that was immersed in a culture of intolerance against religion.

 

I have been watching this on the sidelines for a while now, but I feel my 2 cents (and I would love for one of them to be one of THOSE pennies) getting ready to come out.

 

Traildad. I agree with flask wholeheartedly and share most of the same philosophies. So it would be same to assume that you would say that I was brought up in the same atmosphere of religious intolerance. Nothing could be further from the truth. My parents, grandparents and sisters are devout Roman Catholics. Just not me. I even studied theology and did a thesis on the effects of religion and faith on true believers.

I just have my own thoughts and beliefs and do not wish to have someone else try to change them (which is what I believe to be the purpose of those religious tracts). I do not put my belief (or lack of) out there and try to change anyone's way of thinking.

 

'Nuf said.

[+TrailGators]

When you attack someone's beliefs or a key figure with their beliefs then you are attacking them. I would never think of cracking jokes about Mohamed, Buddah, etc. because I'm respectful of others beliefs.

... and you're also saying that it's okay for you to make snarky and insulting comments about other people's beliefs, but not okay when you think others are making jokes about yours?

 

That wasn't directed at anyone's religion. It was a joke about scientists and engineers and I am an engineer. I have no issues with people joking about their own quirks. I laugh at myself all the time because I know that I'm not infallible. However, I don't like to see mean spirited laughing at others convictions and beliefs for no good reason. If all of us were doing this it might make sense. However, it a very small minority of religious fanatics that are doing this. So why should the majority have to be subjected to your bile? A small hole in the dike should not open up the flood gates of insults. So please try to keep things civil.

[Mushtang]

That wasn't directed at anyone's religion.

I'm still waiting for you to show me how a reference I made to an old joke was an attack directed at TrailGators like you claimed.

 

Or maybe general jokes are okay for TrailGators, but not for Mushtang, just like making fun of someone's beliefs is okay for TrailGators but not for Mushtang?

[+TrailGators]

That wasn't directed at anyone's religion.

I'm still waiting for you to show me how a reference I made to an old joke was an attack directed at TrailGators like you claimed.

It's very simple. I am Catholic and the Pope is the leader of Catholic church. So you are making jokes about something that is important to me and many other caching Catholics out there. I'm not sure why you are making these jokes because the thread is about religious tracts left in caches. I already told you that I would never leave tracts in caches nor would most people of faith.

[Mushtang]

That wasn't directed at anyone's religion.

I'm still waiting for you to show me how a reference I made to an old joke was an attack directed at TrailGators like you claimed.

It's very simple. I am Catholic and the Pope is the leader of Catholic church. So you are making jokes about something that is important to me and many other caching Catholics out there. I'm not sure why you are making these jokes because the thread is about religious tracts left in caches. I already told you that I would never leave tracts in caches nor would most people of faith.

Making jokes about something that is important to you is NOT a direct attack on you.

 

Making a reference to a joke, that makes fun of the Pope, is NOT a direct attack on TrailGators. It's not even an attack on the Pope. Nice try though.

[+TrailGators]

That wasn't directed at anyone's religion.

I'm still waiting for you to show me how a reference I made to an old joke was an attack directed at TrailGators like you claimed.

It's very simple. I am Catholic and the Pope is the leader of Catholic church. So you are making jokes about something that is important to me and many other caching Catholics out there. I'm not sure why you are making these jokes because the thread is about religious tracts left in caches. I already told you that I would never leave tracts in caches nor would most people of faith.

Making jokes about something that is important to you is NOT a direct attack on you.

 

Making a reference to a joke, that makes fun of the Pope, is NOT a direct attack on TrailGators. It's not even an attack on the Pope. Nice try though.

That's the problem. You guys can't even see it. Maybe the shoe has to be on the other foot for you guys to possibly understand.

[Mushtang]

That wasn't directed at anyone's religion.

I'm still waiting for you to show me how a reference I made to an old joke was an attack directed at TrailGators like you claimed.

It's very simple. I am Catholic and the Pope is the leader of Catholic church. So you are making jokes about something that is important to me and many other caching Catholics out there. I'm not sure why you are making these jokes because the thread is about religious tracts left in caches. I already told you that I would never leave tracts in caches nor would most people of faith.

Making jokes about something that is important to you is NOT a direct attack on you.

 

Making a reference to a joke, that makes fun of the Pope, is NOT a direct attack on TrailGators. It's not even an attack on the Pope. Nice try though.

That's the problem. You guys can't even see it. Maybe the shoe has to be on the other foot for you guys to possibly understand.

Then help me to understand.

 

The most important thing to me in my life is my son. It seems like an analogy would be if you made a reference to a joke that poked fun at little kids.

[+TrailGators]

That wasn't directed at anyone's religion.

I'm still waiting for you to show me how a reference I made to an old joke was an attack directed at TrailGators like you claimed.

It's very simple. I am Catholic and the Pope is the leader of Catholic church. So you are making jokes about something that is important to me and many other caching Catholics out there. I'm not sure why you are making these jokes because the thread is about religious tracts left in caches. I already told you that I would never leave tracts in caches nor would most people of faith.

Making jokes about something that is important to you is NOT a direct attack on you.

 

Making a reference to a joke, that makes fun of the Pope, is NOT a direct attack on TrailGators. It's not even an attack on the Pope. Nice try though.

That's the problem. You guys can't even see it. Maybe the shoe has to be on the other foot for you guys to possibly understand.

Then help me to understand.

 

The most important thing to me in my life is my son. It seems like an analogy would be if you made a reference to a joke that poked fun at little kids.

That might be one way for you to understand but I would never joke about your son. I'm not that way. Let's just move on.

[+tozainamboku]

I've never left something like that in a cache and I never will. So why should I and others be attacked?

Where were you attacked?

OK, let's start with you. Weren't you the one cracking jokes about the Pope?

TrailGators is the Pope?

 

I laugh at myself all the time because I know that I'm not infallible.

 

QED TrailGators is not the Pope.

 

But this sure shows why religious discussion get so heated. Catholics believe the Pope is infallible (at least when making a solemn declaration of Church beliefs). This is probably disputed by most non-Catholic Christians.

 

KBI's joke was IMO not disrespectful. It was the old joke about things that are obvious like what a bear does in the woods and what denomination the Pope belongs to. I wasn't quite sure why he said it in response to a comment I made about how the Pope is depicted in some of the Chick tracts. These tracts are extremely anti-Catholic, as well as anti-Muslim, anti-Mormon, anti-Buddhist, and anti several other faiths that Jack Chick doesn't respect. These are a perfect example of why flask is so upset by tracts left in caches. Most of these tracks simply attack other religions. Some Christians think that witnessing what their belief has meant to them is a good thing - that people who are looking for some spiritual meaning will benefit from this. But look at it from a non-Christian's point of view. The tracts say the only way to salvation is to accept the dude Jesus as your savior. Everybody else is going to hell. If I believe that my eternal life is determined by my actions in this life, I don't particularly want to be told I'm going to hell. Perhaps I don't even believe I have a soul that needs saving. Perhaps instead I believe in Karma and reincarnation based on the totality of my deeds in both my present and past lives. Some one leaving a tract that not only says my belief is wrong but that I will be punished in hell for it doesn't come across as tolerant. I believe that most Christian are tolerant of other religious beliefs. If they witness about their faith it is after meeting with someone personally and seeing that this person is interested in learning more about Christianity. They may give the person some tracts to read to learn more. But leaving tracts in a cache could easily be seen as rude.

 

I find the Chick tracts offensive, yet when I found some in a cache I traded for them. The over-the-top attacks and the comic book style make these tracks collectible. Instead of viewing them as religious swag, I view them as a kind of joke. Flying Spaghetti Monster tracks would fall in the same category (though these may be intentionally a joke while the Chick tracts aren't). Other tracts I'd most likely ignore, but wouldn't have any problem with people who CITO'd these out of a cache.

[+ReadyOrNot]

calling jesus a "dude" just doesn't cut it as an attack, i don't think.

 

It's disrespectful and its degrading. It would be like the president of your company showing up for an annual meeting and you high-fiving him and calling him "Dude"...

 

It shows absolutely no respect and is on the verge of demeaning.

[+Renegade Knight]

...calling jesus a "dude" just doesn't cut it as an attack, i don't think.

 

Attack. No.

Respectful? That depends on if Dude is an honorific in your vocabulary or something else.

It also depends on your awareness of the person you are talkign too. If you know they think dude is degenerative and you use it knowing this. Then it is an attack. Sideways perhaps but I think you see the point.

 

Changing it all.

I now know you think it's rude to put a tract in a cache. Knowing this if I am in your neck of the woods and do this to a cache you will find and write on it "this tract is dedicated to flask". Was it an attack? Maybe not, but I can't say it was respectful of you as a person at all. Some would do this just to be funny. It could be funny if the person used the right wording, and the right (non religiouse) tract.

[Mushtang]

calling jesus a "dude" just doesn't cut it as an attack, i don't think.

It's disrespectful and its degrading. It would be like the president of your company showing up for an annual meeting and you high-fiving him and calling him "Dude"...

 

It shows absolutely no respect and is on the verge of demeaning.

Respect is in the intention, not the action.

 

If you normally greet people with a Dude and a high five, then why should someone assume you're disrespecting someone when you do it?

 

Burning the American flag in protest is very disrespectful to the flag and to the country. Burning the flag to destroy it after it's old and tattered is the accepted, respectful, way to get rid of it.

 

You wouldn't give your sweet old mother the middle finger, but if you had a splinter in it and you held up your finger to show her and maybe get her to assist in removing it, there's no disrespect.

 

In the case of the earlier poster referring to "some dude named Jesus", I believe he was suggesting that his belief was that Jesus was not a deity, but was just another guy that lived a long time ago. It didn't seem disrespectful to me in the way he used it.

 

You have used the word Dude in these forums to address people. Were you being disrespectful to them? I wouldn't have thought so.

[+Renegade Knight]

....when i sit down to a full-scale family dinner, i sit down at table with the convinced atheists, lapsed lutherans, devout catholics, casual agnostics and pagan priestesses of my extended family. i wouldn't dream of praying for them to be other than they are. they are all of them people of integrity, generous and good. it would be rude of them to tell me how to place my faith, and it would be rude of me to dishonor them similarly.

 

It would be far more rude for them to dishonor you by not understand that your faith may require you to share the word.

It would be for more rude to assume they are trying to be rude by following the tenants of their faith. that same faith you would not pray for them to change.

 

There is a schizm between your acceptance of everone at the table trying to do the right thing since thats what people of integrety who are generouse and good do, and a cacher doing the same.

 

As I understand your view; if that cacher were at your table and were a person of integrety, generouse and good as you describe it you would not pray for them to change and to dishonor them by asking that they do so.

 

Sorry, there is a though tied in the above. I just can't get it out clearly.

[+Renegade Knight]

...Respect is in the intention, not the action....

 

Yes and no. Your flag burning example is a good one, but it falls short on one key point.

There is a perception as well. While you may mean no disrespect, if you are aware that the other person can percieve your statement/action as such and do it anyway, you are at a minimum disrespecting the person, and in so doing actually disrespecting their faith as well. Maybe it is in the intention after all.

 

I see this a lot in the larger debate that this thread is only one piece of.

[+TrailGators]

...Respect is in the intention, not the action....

 

Yes and no. Your flag burning example is a good one, but it falls short on one key point.

There is a perception as well. While you may mean no disrespect, if you are aware that the other person can percieve your statement/action as such and do it anyway, you are at a minimum disrespecting the person, and in so doing actually disrespecting their faith as well. Maybe it is in the intention after all.

 

I see this a lot in the larger debate that this thread is only one piece of.

This is exactly correct. The other point is that after you've been told not to do it and you continue to do it then you are definitely being disrespectful.

 

The other point that many have missed is that the religious jokes were completely off-topic. This could easily be perceived as being mean-spirited. Why would someone start cracking jokes about the Pope in a thread about tracts? It just didn't make sense to me.

[+ReadyOrNot]

In the case of the earlier poster referring to "some dude named Jesus", I believe he was suggesting that his belief was that Jesus was not a deity, but was just another guy that lived a long time ago. It didn't seem disrespectful to me in the way he used it.

 

I saw it as very disrespectful. I wonder if the president of the company was referred to as "Some dude that works for the company", how he would feel about that? The poster had to be aware that there were a lot of people in this thread who believe that Jesus is God. Knowing that fact and referring to him as "Some dude" is knowingly disrespectful.

 

I thought the tone of the post was very clear. Perhaps you aren't as "sensitive" to that tone as some of us.

[Mushtang]

...Respect is in the intention, not the action....

Yes and no. Your flag burning example is a good one, but it falls short on one key point.

There is a perception as well. While you may mean no disrespect, if you are aware that the other person can percieve your statement/action as such and do it anyway, you are at a minimum disrespecting the person, and in so doing actually disrespecting their faith as well. Maybe it is in the intention after all.

 

I see this a lot in the larger debate that this thread is only one piece of.

I can't agree. If I burn a flag in a respectful way but TrailGators gets his shorts in a wad over it, you're suggesting that I've disrespected TrailGators?

 

I'd suggest that his incorrect assumptions are the cause of the problem, and not my actions.

[Mushtang]

In the case of the earlier poster referring to "some dude named Jesus", I believe he was suggesting that his belief was that Jesus was not a deity, but was just another guy that lived a long time ago. It didn't seem disrespectful to me in the way he used it.

 

I saw it as very disrespectful. I wonder if the president of the company was referred to as "Some dude that works for the company", how he would feel about that? The poster had to be aware that there were a lot of people in this thread who believe that Jesus is God. Knowing that fact and referring to him as "Some dude" is knowingly disrespectful.

 

I thought the tone of the post was very clear. Perhaps you aren't as "sensitive" to that tone as some of us.

Apples and Oranges. The president of the company IS the president. It's a fact, not a belief.

 

Is your issue with the word "dude", and not with what the poster was trying to say? If he said, "some human named Jesus" would you still be offended?

[+KBI]

That's the problem. You guys can't even see it. Maybe the shoe has to be on the other foot for you guys to possibly understand.

That's just it, TG! The shoe IS on the other foot.

 

TG, for years you have been posting wisecracks about any geocache that you happen to think is “lame.”

 

You do this even though you are fully aware that that there are many of us who hold it as an important principle, a deep conviction – a revered belief – that this game is open to everyone, that its participants have a wide variety of preferences, and that it is wrong to disparage people for the ‘crime’ of liking different caches than you do.

 

My defense of ‘lameness,’ as you and your buddies like to call it, is rooted in ethical principles of tolerance and fairness that I happen to hold very dear.

 

You have made dozens and dozens of jokes and wisecracks at the expense of something I respect: the defense of the right of every guideline-compliant cache to exist, no matter how aesthetically uninspired. Little did I know however, until you explained it in your recent posts, that at the same time you were also attacking me personally!

 

 

You can’t say things like:

... you are making jokes about something that is important to me .... I'm not sure why you are making these jokes ...

and

 

I don't like to see mean spirited laughing at others convictions ...

... if you’re also going to turn right around and make vague wisecracks about micros and lamp post hides – and by implication insult those who enjoy those hides.

 

If you’re going to make jokes about lame caches and the lameness of people who hide and find them, then you cannot also suddenly claim special immunity for yourself as soon as someone mentions something YOU happen to respect.

[+TrailGators]

That's the problem. You guys can't even see it. Maybe the shoe has to be on the other foot for you guys to possibly understand.

That's just it, TG! The shoe IS on the other foot.

 

TG, for years you have been posting wisecracks about any geocache that you happen to think is "lame."

 

You do this even though you are fully aware that that there are many of us who hold it as an important principle, a deep conviction – a revered belief – that this game is open to everyone, that its participants have a wide variety of preferences, and that it is wrong to disparage people for the 'crime' of liking different caches than you do.

 

My defense of 'lameness,' as you and your buddies like to call it, is rooted in ethical principles of tolerance and fairness that I happen to hold very dear.

 

You have made dozens and dozens of jokes and wisecracks at the expense of something I respect: the defense of the right of every guideline-compliant cache to exist, no matter how aesthetically uninspired. Little did I know however, until you explained it in your recent posts, that at the same time you were also attacking me personally!

 

 

You can't say things like:

... you are making jokes about something that is important to me .... I'm not sure why you are making these jokes ...

and

 

I don't like to see mean spirited laughing at others convictions ...

... if you're also going to turn right around and make vague wisecracks about micros and lamp post hides – and by implication insult those who enjoy those hides.

 

If you're going to make jokes about lame caches and the lameness of people who hide and find them, then you cannot also suddenly claim special immunity for yourself as soon as someone mentions something YOU happen to respect.

KBI I admit that I have done that in the past and I'm sorry. I have not done it in a long time and I now just ignore all those caches. However, equating film cannisters with someone's God is an incredibly huge stretch unless those people are actually worshipping film cannisters. Tell me that you see the difference?

[+KBI]

calling jesus a "dude" just doesn't cut it as an attack, i don't think.

It's disrespectful and its degrading. It would be like the president of your company showing up for an annual meeting and you high-fiving him and calling him "Dude"...

 

It shows absolutely no respect and is on the verge of demeaning.

I am SO glad the president of MY company isn't that insecure and thin-skinned.

 

If I were a company president I would consider it an honor and a compliment to be greeted with such a genuine gesture of everyman-style friendliness and camaraderie.

 

If I were a company president I might even consider it demeaning to be excluded from such a sincere virtual handshake – IF I were one of those types of people who seem to become offended at the slightest breeze, that is.

[Dinoprophet]

The poster had to be aware that there were a lot of people in this thread who believe that Jesus is God. Knowing that fact and referring to him Him as "Some dude" is knowingly disrespectful.

Hey! Watch it!

 

 

[+TrailGators]

The poster had to be aware that there were a lot of people in this thread who believe that Jesus is God. Knowing that fact and referring to him Him as "Some dude" is knowingly disrespectful.

Hey! Watch it!

That's funny that you noticed that. I had to go back and edit one of my H's. Edited August 13, 2008 by TrailGators

[+ReadyOrNot]

calling jesus a "dude" just doesn't cut it as an attack, i don't think.

It's disrespectful and its degrading. It would be like the president of your company showing up for an annual meeting and you high-fiving him and calling him "Dude"...

 

It shows absolutely no respect and is on the verge of demeaning.

I am SO glad the president of MY company isn't that insecure and thin-skinned.

 

If I were a company president I would consider it an honor and a compliment to be greeted with such a genuine gesture of everyman-style friendliness and camaraderie.

 

If I were a company president I might even consider it demeaning to be excluded from such a sincere virtual handshake – IF I were one of those types of people who seem to become offended at the slightest breeze, that is.

 

Yeah, that's how he meant it It was his great sense of camaraderie he has with Jesus Christ. Do you actually believe the things you type? I already know the answer to that question.... You just like to argue.

 

I don't belittle your God, do I? You've got one of the most amazing God's around. Something was created from nothing and then created order from the nothing, all while having no awareness of its nothingness... I have to hand it to all the atheists/agnostics out there... It takes a LOT of faith to believe that this entire universe blinked into existence without any influence by an outside force. That takes faith...

 

That takes amazing faith!

[+KBI]

....when i sit down to a full-scale family dinner, i sit down at table with the convinced atheists, lapsed lutherans, devout catholics, casual agnostics and pagan priestesses of my extended family. i wouldn't dream of praying for them to be other than they are. they are all of them people of integrity, generous and good. it would be rude of them to tell me how to place my faith, and it would be rude of me to dishonor them similarly.

 

It would be far more rude for them to dishonor you by not understand that your faith may require you to share the word.

It would be for more rude to assume they are trying to be rude by following the tenants of their faith. that same faith you would not pray for them to change.

 

There is a schizm between your acceptance of everone at the table trying to do the right thing since thats what people of integrety who are generouse and good do, and a cacher doing the same.

 

As I understand your view; if that cacher were at your table and were a person of integrety, generouse and good as you describe it you would not pray for them to change and to dishonor them by asking that they do so.

 

Sorry, there is a though tied in the above. I just can't get it out clearly.

Let me try:

 

If someone, whose religious belief is incompatibly deferent from mine, tries to ‘save’ my soul by suggesting I consider substituting their belief for mine, I do not see it as an insult. I see it instead as a genuine concern for my soul. How can I, therefore, allow myself to be offended by someone whose only offense is that they sincerely care about me as a fellow human? As I see it, it would be easier to take offense if they excluded me from their crusade.

 

Is that close to what you were trying to say, RK? If so, then I’m with you.

[Mushtang]

KBI I admit that I have done that in the past and I'm sorry. I have not done it in a long time and I now just ignore all those caches. However, equating film cannisters with someone's God is an incredibly huge stretch unless those people are actually worshipping film cannisters. Tell me that you see the difference?

He wasn't equating the two. He was comparing the disrespect of one belief (a religion) to the disrespect of another belief (a game).

 

Tell me that you see the difference.

[Roadtorque]

 

I think its rude to call someone rude when they are trying to help you.

 

it is rude to assume you know what's best for other people and it is rude to provide "help" that is neither requested nor welcome.

 

people insisting that religious proselytizing is really doing people a favor are rude on an extreme level. it would be rude to follow people around at the grocery store attempting to "assist" people in making better nutritional choices. it would be rude to go to people's homes and give unsolicited advice on the conduct of their marital relationships. it would be rude to offer unwanted fashion advice.

 

what makes these spiritual busybodies think that somehow their extreme discourtesy may be excused on the grounds that they know better the intimate workings of another person's soul?

 

it is patronizing and offensive to attempt to defend this behavior on the grounds that you are somehow spiritually superior and that you are somehow helping us.

 

Based on this I'm wondering if you turn off your TV when advertisments come on? Companies selling their product thinking it can better our lives how rude As far as proselytizing to people who dont "want it" sometimes you dont know you want it until someone is kind enough to bring it to your attention. Seems like people fear what they are uneducated about

 

gosh, that's a spiffy response, but if you'd read anything i said, you'd know that i am neither afraid of faith nor undereducated on it.

 

unwanted spiritual advice is rude.

 

unwanted spiritual advice from people who think they know better than you doubly so.

 

people who think this unpleasant behavior is somehow motivated by love are off the charts in rudeness and delusion.

according to you. But keep in mind an extreme view like this might also seem rude to others. In the end its all about if you (talking to no one specific) choose to accept anything as rude

 

That would make every preacher, prophet, preiest, missionary, and those that wrote the bible or coran or which ever book you read from doubly rude. Come on do you really think so?

 

Again this is your opinion which you are entitled to. But come on you could easily say it the other way. People who think this behavior is somehow motivated by anything other than love are off the charts in rudeness and delusion. I just cant believe after all the junk I run across in caches that religious material is that bad. Maybe if its a packet of info thats waterloged but I dont find that to be the case. Most of the time it is geocoins and religious stuff that is the most valuable in a cache because it doesnt look like someone got it out of the trail head garbage can and put it in there. I really dont get into trading items so to me it seems if you dont like it dont take it. But in the mean time a talk of differences in opinion is fun

[+KBI]

...Respect is in the intention, not the action....

 

Yes and no. Your flag burning example is a good one, but it falls short on one key point.

There is a perception as well. While you may mean no disrespect, if you are aware that the other person can percieve your statement/action as such and do it anyway, you are at a minimum disrespecting the person, and in so doing actually disrespecting their faith as well. Maybe it is in the intention after all.

 

I see this a lot in the larger debate that this thread is only one piece of.

Not even the underlying intention has to matter to you -- unless you choose to be offended.

 

I am an American and I dearly love my country, but I am also able to separate the concept of “America” from the concept of “a symbol that represents America.” When I see one of these death-to-America types burning a flag I can either choose to fly off the handle and be horrified (which is what he wants), OR I can see that he isn’t violating anyone’s rights (assuming it’s his flag, and he’s respecting local burning ordinances) and simply laugh at him. I prefer the latter.

 

Someone posted a quote earlier that went something like this: No one can ever offend you without your consent.

 

Even if you think another person intends to insult you when they do something that is otherwise not harmful, why would you ever want to do them the favor of voluntarily giving them the satisfaction?

[+ReadyOrNot]

....when i sit down to a full-scale family dinner, i sit down at table with the convinced atheists, lapsed lutherans, devout catholics, casual agnostics and pagan priestesses of my extended family. i wouldn't dream of praying for them to be other than they are. they are all of them people of integrity, generous and good. it would be rude of them to tell me how to place my faith, and it would be rude of me to dishonor them similarly.

 

It would be far more rude for them to dishonor you by not understand that your faith may require you to share the word.

It would be for more rude to assume they are trying to be rude by following the tenants of their faith. that same faith you would not pray for them to change.

 

There is a schizm between your acceptance of everone at the table trying to do the right thing since thats what people of integrety who are generouse and good do, and a cacher doing the same.

 

As I understand your view; if that cacher were at your table and were a person of integrety, generouse and good as you describe it you would not pray for them to change and to dishonor them by asking that they do so.

 

Sorry, there is a though tied in the above. I just can't get it out clearly.

Let me try:

 

If someone, whose religious belief is incompatibly deferent from mine, tries to ‘save’ my soul by suggesting I consider substituting their belief for mine, I do not see it as an insult. I see it instead as a genuine concern for my soul. How can I, therefore, allow myself to be offended by someone whose only offense is that they sincerely care about me as a fellow human? As I see it, it would be easier to take offense if they excluded me from their crusade.

 

Is that close to what you were trying to say, RK? If so, then I’m with you.

 

If I found out that a good friend of mine truely believed that I was going to burn for eternity unless I joined them every morning for a white chocolate mocha (quad shot), i'd be quite offended if they didn't invite for me coffee... Apparently my soul burning for eternity isn't a big deal to them? It's less about reality and more about perception, because we are never all going to agree on what reality is.

 

There aren't a whole lot of options available. 1) No God(s) or 2) God(s) -- with a subset of 3) One God or 4) multiple God's. It MUST be one of those options... An atheist chooses #1. An agnostic chooses #5. Many religions fit into #3 and many religions fit into #4. Unfortunately, all of them being correct is not a viable option in this game we call life (although people seem to enjoy choosing that one, they can choose #5 with the agnostics)...

 

Once its broken down in those categories, one can debate each subset... Ultimately you have to provide an answer to the question of "Where did the universe come from"... #1 does not provide a viable solution. Natural law cannot account for the creation of the universe and the creation of matter itself. The universe would have to have created itself prior to existing for #1 to be viable.

 

Ok.. I'm done now..

[+infiniteMPG]

I am SO glad the president of MY company isn't that insecure and thin-skinned. If I were a company president I would consider it an honor and a compliment to be greeted with such a genuine gesture of everyman-style friendliness and camaraderie.

President of my company (large manufacturing firm) was in a restaurant where I was seated at the bar playing trivia and in the conversation bosses were brought up. I was asked "Where's your boss?" and answered "He's that dude in the booth with his family". No disrespect at all. In fact we chatted later and he bought me a beer. Cool dude and being able to chat with the 'regular folks' is important to him.

 

Seems a lot of this issue is more about tolerance then belief, more about sensitivity then politcal or religious correctness. Just like the religious cartoons causing riots and turmoil... it's not strong convictions that caused that, it's intolerance. And that intolerance is a cancer to society because with that type of intolerance the only society that can exist is one where all believe the same. Of course there are reasonable 'limits' to tolerance. It's one thing to attack someone attempting to burn an American flag, but it's another if you punch someone out because they just blew their nose in a red, white and blue handkerchief.

 

For the OP if there is something religious in a cache and it's against your beliefs, leave it and move on. Might be right in line with the next cacher's beliefs. Unless you're the owner and you're against it, or unless it's extremely offensive to the general public or if there's like hundreds of them in one cache, then removing it or destroying it would just show intolerance. And yes, there are many different personal inpretations to "offensive" but I think everyone will agree there is a general "social standard" that wouldn't be too hard to define. No one's forcing anyone to read it. I don't mind static religious informational offerrings like that, wouldn't read it but wouldn't bother me. Now if someone were standing beside the cache preaching their beliefs in my face as I was signing the log, that would be a different story. So unless GC determines that's "soliciting" then leave it be.

 

The skin of the people have grown oh so thin.... ever notice how the Groundspeak logo looks a little like a cross? Better watch out for the correctness folks...

[+KBI]

KBI I admit that I have done that in the past and I'm sorry.

No apology necessary. No offense taken.

 

(See below)

 

I have not done it in a long time and I now just ignore all those caches. However, equating film cannisters with someone's God is an incredibly huge stretch ...

I didn’t equate film canisters with someone’s god.

 

I equated your deeply held convictions with my deeply held convictions.

 

I see no such stretch. The fact that you DO see it as “an incredibly huge stretch” tells me that maybe you STILL don’t respect my deeply held convictions, even as you apologize for making fun of me in the past.

 

Tell me that you see the difference?

The difference is that you chose to take personal offense in a situation where I believe no such personal offence was justified, while I have never chosen to take personal offense at any of your wisecracks about lameness.

 

No offense taken here. I just wanted you to understand that it is inconsistent to make fun of others’ deep convictions while drawing the line at others making fun of yours.

[+infiniteMPG]

I am SO glad the president of MY company isn't that insecure and thin-skinned. If I were a company president I would consider it an honor and a compliment to be greeted with such a genuine gesture of everyman-style friendliness and camaraderie.

President of my company (large manufacturing firm) was in a restaurant where I was seated at the bar playing trivia and in the conversation bosses were brought up. I was asked "Where's your boss?" and answered "He's that dude in the booth with his family". No disrespect at all. In fact we chatted later and he bought me a beer. Cool dude and being able to chat with the 'regular folks' is important to him.

 

Seems a lot of this issue is more about tolerance then belief, more about sensitivity then politcal or religious correctness. Just like the religious cartoons causing riots and turmoil... it's not strong convictions that caused that, it's intolerance. And that intolerance is a cancer to society because with that type of intolerance the only society that can exist is one where all believe the same. Of course there are reasonable 'limits' to tolerance. It's one thing to attack someone attempting to burn an American flag, but it's another if you punch someone out because they just blew their nose in a red, white and blue handkerchief.

 

For the OP if there is something religious in a cache and it's against your beliefs, leave it and move on. Might be right in line with the next cacher's beliefs. Unless you're the owner and you're against it, or unless it's extremely offensive to the general public or if there's like hundreds of them in one cache, then removing it or destroying it would just show intolerance. And yes, there are many different personal inpretations to "offensive" but I think everyone will agree there is a general "social standard" that wouldn't be too hard to define. No one's forcing anyone to read it. I don't mind static religious informational offerrings like that, wouldn't read it but wouldn't bother me. Now if someone were standing beside the cache preaching their beliefs in my face as I was signing the log, that would be a different story. So unless GC determines that's "soliciting" then leave it be.

 

The skin of the people have grown oh so thin.... ever notice how the Groundspeak logo looks a little like a cross? Better watch out for the correctness folks...

[+TrailGators]

KBI I admit that I have done that in the past and I'm sorry. I have not done it in a long time and I now just ignore all those caches. However, equating film cannisters with someone's God is an incredibly huge stretch unless those people are actually worshipping film cannisters. Tell me that you see the difference?

He wasn't equating the two. He was comparing the disrespect of one belief (a religion) to the disrespect of another belief (a game).

 

Tell me that you see the difference.

Yes I do see the difference. Disrespect of a game is completely different than disrespect of someone's religion. However, if someone worships a game then they would be equally disrespectful. Unlike you, I already apologized.

[+TrailGators]

No offense taken here. I just wanted you to understand that it is inconsistent to make fun of others' deep convictions while drawing the line at others making fun of yours.

 

Maybe I've never understood. Your deepest convictions involve a game?

[+KBI]

Do you actually believe the things you type? I already know the answer to that question.... You just like to argue.

Thanks for making that clear.

 

Now that you have attacked my sincerity and accused me of trolling, I can save myself from the pointless trouble of posting any further responses to your comments.

 

(Interesting that one of the most sensitive and easily offended people in this thread is also so quick with the personal assaults against others.)

[Mushtang]

KBI I admit that I have done that in the past and I'm sorry. I have not done it in a long time and I now just ignore all those caches. However, equating film cannisters with someone's God is an incredibly huge stretch unless those people are actually worshipping film cannisters. Tell me that you see the difference?

He wasn't equating the two. He was comparing the disrespect of one belief (a religion) to the disrespect of another belief (a game).

 

Tell me that you see the difference.

Yes I do see the difference. Disrespect of a game is completely different than disrespect of someone's religion.

How is it completely different? Disrespect is disrespect. The target is irrelevant.

 

However, if someone worships a game then they would be equally disrespectful.

I don't understand why somebody has to worship something for disrespect to become something that should be avoided.

 

Unlike you, I already apologized.

Apology accepted. What do I need to apologize for?

[+tozainamboku]

equating film cannisters with someone's God is an incredibly huge stretch unless those people are actually worshipping film cannisters. Tell me that you see the difference?

Don't be ridiculous. Film cannisters aren't god. The light pole is god. God provides the light to show us the way and gives us commandments like "Parking for customers only". The symbolic lifting of god's skirt is a ritual mean to show that we must make an effort to know what god expects of us. The film cannisters are left by pilgrims as an offering to god and so that other believers may leave their names in the offering to express their thanks for god's gifts.

[+ReadyOrNot]

Do you actually believe the things you type? I already know the answer to that question.... You just like to argue.

Thanks for making that clear.

 

Now that you have attacked my sincerity and accused me of trolling, I can save myself from the pointless trouble of posting any further responses to your comments.

 

(Interesting that one of the most sensitive and easily offended people in this thread is also so quick with the personal assaults against others.)

 

If the shoe fits... You have a "reputation" for trolling and derailing threads. Instead of looking for someone's true intentions, you look for an angle for argument. I also do the same thing if I'm in the "right" mood. Its not an attack on you. It's an observation. Do you disagree?

[+KBI]

Disrespect of a game is completely different than disrespect of someone's religion. However, if someone worships a game then they would be equally disrespectful.

Maybe I've never understood. Your deepest convictions involve a game?

If you’ve heard all my explanations, yet you still conclude that I worship a game, then no, you haven’t understood.

 

I do NOT worship geocaches. I don’t really worship anything.

 

What I hold very dear is (are?) the concepts of fairness, personal responsibility, and respect for others’ rights.

 

You say “disrespect of a game is completely different than disrespect of someone's religion.” For you to believe that requires an assumption on your part: How the heck do you know how I feel about the way people treat each other? What makes you think my convictions are any less important to me than yours are to you? When you blow off my personal principles with wisecracks, you show a lack of respect for the things I hold dear.

 

The difference between you and me is that I don’t see any reason to take it personally.

 

[EDIT: Dang, grammar are hard.]

Edited August 13, 2008 by KBI

[+ReadyOrNot]

Now that you have attacked my sincerity and accused me of trolling, I can save myself from the pointless trouble of posting any further responses to your comments.

 

You weren't "Offended" by what I wrote were you? I'm sorry, let me re-word that. You didn't "Choose" to be offended by what I wrote did you?

[+KBI]

Do you actually believe the things you type? I already know the answer to that question.... You just like to argue.

Thanks for making that clear.

 

Now that you have attacked my sincerity and accused me of trolling, I can save myself from the pointless trouble of posting any further responses to your comments.

 

(Interesting that one of the most sensitive and easily offended people in this thread is also so quick with the personal assaults against others.)

 

If the shoe fits... You have a "reputation" for trolling and derailing threads. Instead of looking for someone's true intentions, you look for an angle for argument. I also do the same thing if I'm in the "right" mood. Its not an attack on you. It's an observation. Do you disagree?

Why are you still responding to a person you have already accused of being a troll? Where is the logic in that?

 

I told you, I won't debate you any more. There is no longer any logical reason for me to do so.

 

Now, if you want to take it back ... well, then I might reconsider. But I’ll have to be convinced you don’t think I’m a troll; otherwise there is still no logical reason for me to debate you.

 

You’ll also need to convince me you understand that my viewpoints arise from carefully considered personal principles, and not “devil’s advocate” argument just for the shallow fun of having something to argue.

 

Think you can convince me?

[+TrailGators]

KBI I admit that I have done that in the past and I'm sorry. I have not done it in a long time and I now just ignore all those caches. However, equating film cannisters with someone's God is an incredibly huge stretch unless those people are actually worshipping film cannisters. Tell me that you see the difference?

He wasn't equating the two. He was comparing the disrespect of one belief (a religion) to the disrespect of another belief (a game).

 

Tell me that you see the difference.

Yes I do see the difference. Disrespect of a game is completely different than disrespect of someone's religion.

How is it completely different? Disrespect is disrespect. The target is irrelevant.

 

However, if someone worships a game then they would be equally disrespectful.

I don't understand why somebody has to worship something for disrespect to become something that should be avoided.

 

Unlike you, I already apologized.

Apology accepted. What do I need to apologize for?

 

You really don't see any difference in severity of the infraction? If some kid at school disrespected your son's deepest beliefs versus your son's marble collection then you would see those as completely equal? If that is the case, then there is no point in even talking to you.