--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Dec 3, 2005, at 10:29 AM, anonymousff wrote: > > > I don't see any such references in Tom's post. But your bigotry > > against hindus and their religious practices is astonishing. Just > > because you don't beleive in, or more to the point -- understand -- > > other cultures' religions practices is no grounds to ridicule them. > > Do you really think Dr. Pete's post was written seriously? I took it as tongue-in-cheek,
Often bigotry is most effectively embedded in smug, tongue-in-check slurs. Often good old boy talk is like that. Or gym talk. Sort of like the other thread on the stereotypes of women and their veracity. Lots of smug jokes could be made -- and actualy have been "I mean she wasn't a topless dancer" -- a "yuk yuk, chuckle chuckle" ripples through the men readers. It was tongue in check but hit the nail deeper into the casket real representations of women (and men) by enforcing false stereotypes via humor. Frankly, I don't think Dr. Pete was intending bigotry. However, I think his slant and smug comments, while "tongue-in-check" and thus "pluasubly deniable" are ridiculing a (to millions) sacred religious practice. Implying they are worthless hokum -- based on the example of one mixed-up white boy. That builds a foundation for further "all in fun" tongue-in-check" degrading comments about hindus and their practices. Or any religion. Like the slippery slope of judging a woman's veracity by education, profession etc, there is a sippery slope of bigotry, IMO. Like the woman's example Phd > executive > community leader > teacher > mom > walmart worker > trailer park resident > topless dancer > prostitute -- where do you draw the line of "veracity". You don't! Its a false premise that there is such a gradation. Its a false model. In the same way with a bigotry heirarchy: yagyas are ineffective and silly < people who do yagyas are silly < people who do things differently than us are strange < its the strange people who are causing the problems < townies are ignorant rednecks < who are those camel jockey's who moved next door < those towel heads setting fires to those cars up town ought to be deported - if not shot < blacks should be profiled < arabs should ot be allowed on airplanes < mexicans are ruining america < jews control the media and have an agenda < this is a chirstian nation < I don't want any blacks or arabs living next door < lets deport all arabs < jews control all banks and are causing the depression .... I cant even remember Mr Pall's slurs. Not sure where to put them in on the scale. The above comparision is probably flawed. Objections can be made in any number of superficial areas I am sure. But the theme of stereotyping, starting at "innocent" tongue-in-check levels, provide the (in)tolerance and foundatin for more advanced stereotypes and bigotry. And like the woman's veracity scale, its a false model. Its based on false associations of traits with a particular group. But I digress. My main concern with Dr. Pete was that he was rudely, IMO, making jokes about sacred ceremonies. Which is ok for crass people at all walks of life to do. As long as its consistent. My point was that there are probably sacred things in Mr Petes life that would offend him if ridiculed. If not, ridicule away if that makes you happy. But if Mr Pete or others have areas they hold sacred, outside of the boundaries of "fair ridicule" then its hypocrosy to ridicule sacred areas of others' lives. > > Whats your take on christians taking communion, muslems praying before > > Mecca six times a day, Buddhists strivng to be compassionate? I have > > seen fools do all of such. Does that make these practices foolish? > > The first two have nothing in common with the third. The first two are > rituals, not tied to any particular set of actions, the third one *is* > action. I am not into such distinctions like you are. My point is everyone has sacred things in their lives -- that many others do not "get". Like TM 2x. Or going to the domes. Step back a few feet and yagyas are not more "silly" or "sacred" than that to most. Respect, tolerance and maturity are reflected in appreciating that one does not know all, that one does not understand all traditions. And thus a mindful respect of others' traditions is warranted. To ridicule them is a form of bigotry, a form of espressing superiority and identity enhancement. Even if its subtle, artful, humerous. Actually, often that is the most insidious -- because its bigotry that enters "polite society" like a trojan horse. Crass bigotry is quickly shouted down at the gates -- like Mr Pall's. ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
