The Upper Room

In rugby union, the "99" call was a policy of simultaneous retaliation by the Lions during their 1974 tour to South Africa. The tour was marred by on-pitch violence, which the match officials did little to control and the relative absence of cameras compared to the modern game made citing and punishment after the fact unlikely."According to the captain, Willie John McBride, the call was supposed to be '999'- for emergency - but he never had time to shout out the third '9'!"() Lions' captain Willie John McBride therefore instigated a policy of "one in, all in" - that is, when one Lion retal...

wax eagle

@TRiG interesting...

Flimzy

TRiG: I was referring to Agent 99

TRiG: Maxwell Smart's partner on the TV series "Get Smart"

@TRiG: Their rival agency was called "Chaos"

wax eagle

10:21 PM

Looks like Caleb is in for a tag badge soon :)

@Flimzy i C

TRiG

@Flimzy. Okay. News to me. I just googled call 99 and posted what I found.

Flimzy

@TRiG: I'm sure that's what I would have done, too... if I didn't know.

There was also a recent Steve Carrel movie, where he played Maxwell Smart

and The Rock was one of the Chaos agents

it's sort of a James Bond/spy parody genre

TRiG

Right. I think I've read one Bond novel and seen two films. Not really my thing.

dancek

0

A: Can you be a Christian and serve in the Military?

I've personally gone through a year of military service. National service is compulsory here for every male citizen. There's an alternative, non-military service that's also available for those that have ethical or religious objections to military service. So I definitely had to think a lot about...

TRiG

(Actually, I'm not sure what is my thing. Obscure pop culture references are good, though.)

@dancek. My ex-religion would definitely say no.

On the other hand, rockbeyondbelief.com/2011/09/08/…

dancek

10:27 PM

@TRiG yeah. Actually JWs are excluded from the compulsory service in Finland. I think they're the only group at that, beside people living in Åland (which is DMZ).

Flimzy

It looks like Software Monkey is in the lead for 'Great answer' badge.

dancek

@dancek anyway I'm quite proud of my answer there, even if it's not very Christianity-based as my other answers tend to be. I really had to think a lot about these things back when I was about to serve.

Flimzy

I'm tied for 7th place on that one

@dancek: Talking to yourself?

wax eagle

@Flimzy how do you tell that?

TRiG

@dancek, The fact that religious objectors to military service find it very easy to get out of it (even if they can't articulate their beliefs well at all), while non-religious pacifists find it very easy, is yet another example of the privileged place of religion in western society.

dancek

10:31 PM

@Flimzy referring to an earlier line. That's the only way to do that.

TRiG

non-religious pacifists find it quite difficult

Flimzy

@wax: I just looked at the top answer provided by the top page full of users. It's possible that some user with low rep provided a really good answer, then got a ton of down votes, too

TRiG

sheesh.

wax eagle

@Flimzy good point

Flimzy

@wax: But Software Monkey has a 30-vote answer, so that means to contend with that someone would have earned at least 300 rep from upvotes... if you allow for some down voting, too, then any contendors would have at least 250 rep or more

Atlhough I stopped after the first page, even though everyone on the first page has over 300

dancek

10:35 PM

@TRiG it's not easy to get away from national service as a JW. You pretty much need to be active in a JW parish all the time when you're between 19-30, and need to get provide proof of that from local parish leaders every two years. Any other religious pacifists get exactly the same treatment as ethical pacifists: either a 362-day alternative service (frankly, very easy compared to military), or go to prison.

@TRiG you can edit btw (like I edited here, see post history)

wax eagle

@Flimzy not neccesarily. rep cap

Flimzy

@wax: Oh, that's true.

@wax: Well, feel free to keep digging then... :)

wax eagle

@dancek there is a 5 minute window on this

@Flimzy meh, figuring out top answers is way too tedious...you could start with Good answer though

dancek

@waxeagle I know, just thought I'd mention

@waxeagle since we're so early, you can still see top answers in christianity.stackexchange.com/…

wax eagle

@dancek good point

dancek

10:38 PM

(needs mod tools, i.e. 2000+ or diamond)

Flimzy

@dancek: indeed

wax eagle

@Flimzy you are correct, the top answer does belong to Software

dancek

I'd like to know how far I'm from Strunk&White, but afaik there's no way to tell

for Pundit there's api.christianity.stackexchange.com/1.1/usage/methods/…

wax eagle

@dancek look at all time editors

TRiG

See link above to Rock Beyond Belief. It's an example of ADF (a conservative Christian group) telling barefaced lies. I have any number of other examples, and am considering trying to put together a question about why the American Religious Right is so often blatantly dishonest. But see comment at http://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/2769/why-do-many-christians-object-to-same-sex-civil-marriage (also about the ADF, as it happens, and similar groups).

But I'm not sure how to phrase it in a way that won't get it immediately closed. (Also, as I said in the comment, I don't want to …

Flimzy

10:41 PM

@Danceck: You can see how many edits you have on the Users page. I don't know if that counts multiple edits per post, though.

dancek

@waxeagle wow! nice!

Flimzy

I'm the only one with Strunk and White right now

and there are others with > 80 edits

so it must not count multiple edits per post

wax eagle

@Flimzy based on the wording it does look like its per post

but at least its ball park

Flimzy

@Caleb is the only other user with > 80 edits total... but apparently less than 80 edited posts

TRiG

Any suggestions, comments?

wax eagle

10:47 PM

@TRiG I've got to head, out I may come back and comment later.

Flimzy

@TRiG: Many groups tell blatant lies... asking why is probably not a very useful question, I'm guessing. I mean, we could approach it philosophically with an answer like "To promote personal gain", but even if that's true, it's not very useful.

El'endia Starman

Heading out as well. Seeya guys! :)

Flimzy

@TRiG: Is there a specific type of answer you're hoping for?

That might help frame the question

TRiG

@Flimzy. I don't know.

@Flimzy. Many people do indeed tell lies, but it seems that (prominent, politically active) right wing Christians do so openly, blatantly, and get away with it. And that's unusual, which makes this a Chrisitian-specific question, not a general one.

Perhaps an American-specific one too, actually.

Flimzy

@TRiG: I, for one, despise FOX News for this very reason. Many of their lies are at least shrouded with ambiguity, but they're still blatant.

@TRiG: I don't really know how to ask a question about that, though.

TRiG

10:52 PM

@Flimzy. Did you ever get back to that "Sex and Money" series you said you'd read? Another thing that blogger (Fred Clarke "slacktivist") has often done is attempt to answer this question. But his is the only Christian perspective I've seen, and I'd like to see a few others.

Flimzy

@TRiG: I started to yesterday, then got distracted again... I still have it sitting open in a browser tab, so I'll hopefully get to it soon :)

TRiG

@Flimzy. He's one of my favourite bloggers (along with Greta Christina, which is an odd mixture). I even mention him in my profile here. I think you'd like it.

Flimzy

@TRiG: One problem with asking a question about FOX News here, for instance, is that FOX News doesn't claim to be Christian. And asking "Why do some Christians like FOX News?" isn't useful, either, because "some Christians" is too ambiguous.

@TRiG: As you come across lies propagated by Christian groups, you could obviously ask questions about them specifically.. "Christian organization X says Y. Is this true?"

But even then, for it to be on-topic, 'Y' would have to be about Christianity or Christian beliefs, and not some random political issue.

TRiG

@Flimzy. I wasn't thinking of talking about Fox qua Fox. What about the ADF?

Flimzy

I don't know anything about the ADF

TRiG

10:56 PM

Slacktivist: christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/381/…

Flimzy

let me look them up

TRiG

@Flimzy. They fight against religious freedom while claiming to fight for it. See comments here: christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/2769/….

Flimzy

What does ADF stand for?

TRiG

Alliance Defence Fund.

Flimzy

Ah, I have heard of that

TRiG

10:57 PM

Hang on. I'm trying to dig up a link.

Flimzy

only in the context of advertisements/sponsorships on christian radio

I have a general problem with most Christian legal/political organizations... and that is that they tend focus on the outward expressions of faith/religion rather than on what matters most--the hearts and minds of people.

They basically fall into the definition of "legalism"

TRiG

Christian radio? Sounds dire.

Flimzy

Christian radio has its uses... although I don't listen a lot... most of it is more right-wing than I'm generally comfortable listening to...

and it pisses me off :)

especially the shows with a lot of political commentary

TRiG

There's an article in The Slactkiverse about how working in a Christian Book Store destroyed someone's faith.

Flimzy

heh

TRiG

11:02 PM

(It was later restored by watching Buffy the Vampire Slayer.)

Flimzy

haha

TRiG

Part 1: http://slacktivist.typepad.com/slacktivist/2011/07/faith-and-hope-20-off.html
Part 2: http://slacktivist.typepad.com/slacktivist/2011/08/stakes-perky-hairdos-and-other-things-that-matter.html

@Flimzy. Ah. I've found the ADF article I was looking for: patheos.com/Resources/Additional-Resources/…. (You may see intemperate remarks from me in the comments.)

Flimzy

shudder

the opening of that article reminds me of one of the reasons I rarely shop at Christian stores

TRiG

(But me being intemperate is something you're perhaps getting used to.)

Flimzy

I like the opening on the second part... "I still liked Christ, but I was completely sick of his legacy, and all the rubbish that surrounded it. "

I think that's a very common sentiment these days (perhaps always has been)

@TRiG: I just read that ADF article... which lie(s) were you referring to there?

TRiG

11:23 PM

<aside type="necessary context">This article was written recently after the slacktivist blog (liberal Evangelical Christian) moved to Patheos (general religious discussion site), so my comment mentions some of the things which had been dividing the slacktivist community, and lead to it splitting into slacktivist at the new site and The Slacktiverse at the original domain.</aside>

@Flimzy. As I said in the comment there,

*And this was why the Slactivist comentariat were saying that Patheos is not a safe place. If people like you, actively campaigning against fairness, against equality, actively working to make the world a worse place while simultaneously claiming the moral high ground, are allowed to be columnists here, this is definitely not a safe place.*

dancek

christianity.stackexchange.com/users/592/neil-meyer temporarily suspended? huh? wouldn't have expected any severe rule violations from him

TRiG

@Flimzy. Another quote from a comment I made there:

Your "entire reason for being" is to attack religious freedom while claiming to defend it. What you're actually defending is religious hemogony. You also claim to "defend the traditional family", which we all know is code for attacking equality and working to make the world a less fair place.

How dare you claim to be a decent human being?

TRiG.

And again,

If he actually wanted to "defend religious freedom" he'd wouldn't be trying to enforce the rules of his religion on everyone else. For a start, he'd be in favour of marriage equality.

He's not in favour of marriage equality. Instead, he is saying that the doctrine of his brand of Christianity should be enforced in the law of the land, while the doctrine of the Quakers and others should be denigrated. Ergo, he is not in favour of religious freedom. When he says he fights for religious freedom, he's lying. What he's actually fighting is for is to keep the priviliged position his …

@Flimzy.

And here's another good summary of the lies in the article, this time from Justin Stamper:

1. He asserts that the ACLU is a "leftist" organization. Utter BS. This guy probably thinks MSNBC is "leftist". They are a liberal organization, but being liberal isn't the same as being leftist. I would argue semantically against calling any liberal organization leftist by default, as well as calling any religious organization "right wing" by default.

2. He asserts that the "religious right", which he identifies with(which I appreciate, as one should be open about their position), is unde…

Flimzy

@danceck: weird

@TRiG: I don't most people see the fight against gay marriage or against abortion are fights against religious freedom.

TRiG

@Flimzy. They quite clearly are fights against religious freedom. Ask the Quakers.

Flimzy

@TRiG: Although I do have a hard time understanding how someone can say that if gay marriage were legal, it would infringe upon the existing freedoms of Christians, or any other religious group.

How do the Quakers relate?

TRiG

11:33 PM

Well, they support marriage equality.

Flimzy

Not all of them do.

There are segments of most Christian denominations that support gay marriage.

TRiG

And they're not allowed to have it, because the definitions of another denomination are encoded in the laws of the state.

Quakers in the UK have even sued the government on this issue.

Flimzy

I think for something to be considered a "religions freedom" issue, it would have to be something that, without, the religion could not be fully expressed.

Even most Christians who support gay marriage wouldn't agree with that... although I'm sure some do.

There were (perhaps still are) many Mormons historically who felt that way about plural marriage

TRiG

So interfering in another church's marriage ceremonies doesn't count as infringing on their freedom?

Flimzy

It might.

But I don't think that's the core of the issue.

And I think that's apparent from the side of the supporters of gay marriage, too... they tend to frame it as a civil rights issue, not a religious freedom issue.

TRiG

11:37 PM

@Flimzy. Take this statement: If he actually wanted to "defend religious freedom" he'd wouldn't be trying to enforce the rules of his religion on everyone else.

Flimzy

Of course, I can only speak in generalities here.

TRiG

Is there anything inaccurate in that statement?

(Other than the superfluous 'd.)

Flimzy

I'll agree that fighting against gay marriage on the grounds of religions freedom doesn't make much sense to me.

TRiG

It's a lie.

Flimzy

However, the ADF does exist to fight for religious freedom. That's just not it's only purpose.

It fights for the "religious freedom" to display crosses, the tend commandmants, and other religoius symbols in schools and court houses or whatever.

TRiG

11:41 PM

Exactly. The ADF exists to preserve religious hemegony.

I'm too tired to spell.

Flimzy

So I think an ADF lawyer could accurately say "My job is to fight for religious freedom." and "My job is to fight against gay marriage." And it wouldn't be a lie. Although it would be easy to falsely tie the two together into what appears to be unrelated.

Now... if he actually said "My job is to fight for religious freedom by fighting against gay marriage" (and maybe he did... I don't know)... then that would be something to be concerned about, IMO.

TRiG

When has the ADF ever fought for religious freedom? Give me one example.

Flimzy

I don't follow the ADF closely, so I don't know.

But the front page of their web site seems to provide several examples

"ADF Contests Move to Ban 'Religious Texts' from Idaho Classrooms"

TRiG

Rob Tisinai on religious freedom and same-sex marriage:
http://tinyvoiceofreason.typepad.com/youth_rights_campaign/2009/04/youth-rights-rob-tisinai-video-on-religious-freedom.html (also mentions a few more Christians telling lies, as we've got used to).

Flimzy

Their web site actually lists three areas they work for: religious freedom, sanctity of life, and marriage and the family. So it seems that the official ADF view is that gay marriage is a separate issue from religious freedom.

Interesting video.

TRiG

11:51 PM

@Flimzy. What did you think of it?

Flimzy

I think he does a good job of showing the fault in the arguments made by that church/those churches.

IMO, it's still not primarily a religious freedom issue... so his conclusion I think is still a bit shaky.

I think he did a good job of showing why it's not a religious freedom issue... not that it's a religious freedom issue in the opposite direction.

TRiG

Are you saying that the religious freedom of non-bigots is not under attack?

I think it quite clearly is.

shrug

Flimzy

Well, I guess what I'm saying is that practically anything can be turned into a "religious freedom" issue.

I recall a case in, I think california, about "religious prostitution"...

TRiG

I think I've heard of that.

Flimzy

Some church was hiring out prostitutes, claiming they were "priestesses" and that their constituents would sleep with to "get closer to God" or whatever

So if we can turn prostitution into a "religious freedom" issue, we can cast anything in that light... whether it really belongs there or not.

The reality is that all laws are there to limit freedom...

TRiG

11:55 PM

Not that I'd have anything against prostitution (at least, not as often as I'd like). I don't think sex between consenting adults is any more of the government's business when it involves the exchange money than it is when it doesn't.

Flimzy

There's not a single law that doesn't limit freedom in one way or another.

TRiG

Poorly done joke stolen from Woody Allan, who did it better.

Flimzy

I could say that my religion says that I can drive as fast as I want

then claim that speed enforcement laws are a violation of my religious freedom

TRiG

@Flimzy. Agreed, which is why laws need to be justified, and those justifications need to be secular in nature.

Flimzy

If gay marriage is to become legal, I think it makes more sense to fight that battle on a civil liberties front than on a religious freedom front

I don't think even black discrimination was fought against on the religious freedom front :)

Even though many slave owners thought they had a God-given right to own and oppress their slaves

TRiG

11:58 PM

(And the secular arguments against marriage equality are mainly, as Rob Tisinai pointed out, lies.)

Flimzy

And after the end of slavery many did (and likely still do) think that black people are inherently less valuable in God's eyes

TRiG

Yeah. Sin of Ham, curse of Canaan.

Flimzy

Yeah, that's the Mormon view, I believe...

many other groups have had other justifications for racial segregation

Transcript for