Christian Bumper Stickers

alfred_ »

Wed Aug 20, 2008 11:59 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

I don't see what you're missing, but here goes.

Most folk in the West that own much property at all own two items worth more than a few thousand dollars: a small real-estate claim of some sort and a vehicle. Hopefully, the real estate cost more than the car, since most cars depreciate in value rapidly; hence, the "second-most-expensive" property for most folk is, in my mind, the car. Bumper stickers stand a moderate chance of damaging the paint or finish (and thus, the resale value of the car), so one possible interpretation is that attaching one should indicate a more-than-passing interest in or approval for the subject of the sticker. This is surely the case for political bumper stickers, at least (fun experiment: see how many bumper stickers promoting political candidates survive the election of their opponents).

In my case, I have purchased a few bumper stickers here and there, but I do not attach them to the car's exterior; instead, I either lay them under the rear window or tape them to its interior surface. This might suggest to anyone deeply interested in the relevance of bumper stickers (or maybe of legible messages on personal belongings in general) that my dedication to whatever messages those stickers bear is less than would be the case for someone who plastered them over the paint on their shiny new car. I don't really think that's true, but since the topic is the relevance of bumper stickers...it's an interpretation that comes fairly readily to mind.

Crown Point Residents Complain about Noisy Revival

alfred_ »

Wed Aug 20, 2008 2:45 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Honest worship, more power to them, but there's something to be said for being good neighbors, after all. Roaring crowds every night until midnight for a MONTH? Yeesh.

Most buildings are pretty sound-proof; I can't see folk complaining too much about the noise if they took it indoors, especially considering that many churches run several night vigils a year anyway.

Christian Bumper Stickers

alfred_ »

Wed Aug 20, 2008 2:39 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

Why buy any Christian merchandise, save a good Bible and a nice suit or dress for mass? It's just advertisement, after all!

Some fair number of bumper stickers, t-shirts, hats, and other decorations are produced with charity in mind; profits go to the needy and so forth. Other than that, yeah...

Personally, I leave any bumper stickers I buy in my back window, still attached to their paper backings. There they stay, until they fade or bubble up and look crummy. I suppose part of the philosophy is to say, "I care enough about this message that I defaced my second-most-expensive piece of property to convey it." In which case, I guess I'm not sending the right message after all.

Why Religion and Not 'Sexual Orientation' Deserves to be a Specially Protected Class

alfred_ »

Wed Aug 20, 2008 2:01 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Simply put, all the traits mentioned in lists of protected statuses have distinct, separate origins. Attempting to compare laws banning discrimination against religious groups with laws banning discrimination against homosexuals in the manner employed in this article is equivalent to comparing laws banning discrimination because of age and laws banning discrimination based on national origin to the disfavor of either. The laws offer a similar set of legal remedies for the plaintiff, but the social justifications underpinning each are going to differ by definition, because they refer to very different physical aspects of the individual. Age discrimination is unjust, and discrimination against ethnic groups is unjust, but the qualities being discriminated against in these cases differ immensely. They are the difference between time of birth and place of birth -- different notions, to be sure!

What the items listed in such protective legislation share is the fact that these statuses do not, by themselves, make one person more or less fit for participation in society, nor any aspect thereof, and that they have historically been the basis for discrimination or other forms of persecution. It's not a question of the "necessity" of people with these statuses to a functioning society; historically, many societies have existed for centuries with ethnically homogenous populations, with vanishingly small numbers of elderly people, with state-mandated "universal" religions, and so forth. It's a matter of whether those statuses alone cause a person to be unfit for participation in their communities. The civil rights of convicted felons and certain mentally ill people are curtailed in a number of fashions, the most visible ones being incarceration and hospitalization, respectively; this is largely because said felons and patients have shown an inability to coexist with their fellow citizens.

The question to ask when evaluating a status for special protection is not, "is the preservation of such-and-such status vital to the survival of the country," as very few statuses actually are, but rather, "does such-and-such status, in and of itself, cause the individual to be unfit for participation in society, and, if it does not, has it been used to justify discrimination?" If widespread, significantly harmful discrimination against people with brown hair, people who play cricket, or people who crack their eggs at the small end were to be uncovered tomorrow, I would heartily recommend that any Court presented with such a case give it full consideration, possibly followed by a recommendation for protective legislation, if the problem was sufficiently common and inadequately covered under existing legislation. This in spite of my blond fur, my preference for baseball, and my unfortunate tendency to crush, rather than neatly split, eggs.

chicago24:
Immutability is a red herring. I think Reverend Creech and I would, in the end, agree on that.