Strange moral dilemma for me regarding my professor. (heavy CC)

[Barb_]

I love you, Barb.

 

Snuggles :grouphug:

[Corraleno]

That could be looked at another way also, since you want to make these types of conclusions.

How about this pretend scenario : You have two small children with you and you have to go get one off of a tall ladder they just climbed up and the other one needs to be supervised.

Who would you want to leave the child with ?

 

Someone like the man I described earlier - He uses a lot of vulgarity - finds a way to say a lot of sexual things that most people would shake their heads at - can't seem to say even one sentence without cursing and on and on ......

 

or

A man who you have heard speak, he never curses, speaks kindly of others, and so on.

 

_________________

My point is not whether or not someone says "Oh My G*d is bad or not, but that I do think how we speak does matter and does make an impression on others, but depending on the situation , the degree that it matters varies widely.

This is beyond silly. There are plenty of pedophiles in the church, who probably have very "clean" vocabularies, and there are plenty of people who curse like sailors who are fine upstanding citizens. Given a choice between handing my child to a priest who never curses or a soldier who curses like, well, a soldier, I might very well choose the soldier.

 

The idea that someone's vocabulary inevitably reflects their morals is simply not true.

 

Jackie

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

You know, there are kind, gentle people who cuss like sailors...my great grandpa was one of the best of them. Then there are self-righteous, uptight, petty unforgiving people who would never let profanity cross their lips. The two aren't mutually exclusive and this is veering off into bizarre territory.

 

Barb

 

:iagree:

[Miss Sherry]

This is beyond silly. There are plenty of pedophiles in the church, who probably have very "clean" vocabularies, and there are plenty of people who curse like sailors who are fine upstanding citizens. Given a choice between handing my child to a priest who never curses or a soldier who curses like, well, a soldier, I might very well choose the soldier.

 

The idea that someone's vocabulary inevitably reflects their morals is simply not true.

 

Jackie

Yes, it is silly. I should have just not said it. I think my thinking toward people who curse a lot has been so effected by this one man in particular who cursed a lot and abused his daugther that I have lost perspective.

 

What I am saying is, I think we are effected by what people say and do tend to make judgements ,but really, these judgements certainly can be way off at times.

[Guest janainaz]

That could be looked at another way also, since you want to make these types of conclusions.

How about this pretend scenario : You have two small children with you and you have to go get one off of a tall ladder they just climbed up and the other one needs to be supervised.

Who would you want to leave the child with ?

 

Someone like the man I described earlier - He uses a lot of vulgarity - finds a way to say a lot of sexual things that most people would shake their heads at - can't seem to say even one sentence without cursing and on and on ......

 

or

A man who you have heard speak, he never curses, speaks kindly of others, and so on.

 

_________________

My point is not whether or not someone says "Oh My G*d is bad or not, but that I do think how we speak does matter and does make an impression on others, but depending on the situation , the degree that it matters varies widely.

 

I don't look at things that way. To me, that's looking on the surface and not underneath.

[Miss Sherry]

:iagree: If it so offends you, then you should approach the other adult in question, like an adult, and have a conversation about it. You can't, however, expect that she is going to change just for you. You can tell her how you feel, though. At least then, she is aware of it.

 

Also, if this school is not a Christian school, I don't think you can expect the professors to bow to your description of what is acceptable or unacceptable Christian speech. If this is an issue that is very important to you, I think you need to find a college that is specifically in line with your dogma, because it will likely happen again and again that professors will use language to which you object.

I think this is really the most sensible way to approach the whole situation.

[Guest janainaz]

Oh come on. What do you really expect her to say "Oh no, I wouldn't want them to rescue my child". I think you are completely twisting what her dilemma is and purposely trying to make her look bad simply because you have a different take on the situation than she does. You are being very unfair and ungracious towards the OP.

Do you really think YOU are the only one who cares anything about others, and what is this based on, "OH my G*d" doesn't bother YOU. :tongue_smilie:

 

I am not being ungracious. She posted a question on a public forum, and I asked a hypothetical question in response, without name-calling or making a direct accusation.

 

Clearly, you seem very heated and upset.

[simka2]

Yes, it is silly. I should have just not said it. I think my thinking toward people who curse a lot has been so effected by this one man in particular who cursed a lot and abused his daugther that I have lost perspective.

 

What I am saying is, I think we are effected by what people say and do tend to make judgements ,but really, these judgements certainly can be way off at times.

 

This took courage, honesty and humility. Thanks for setting such a great example!

[Miss Sherry]

This took courage, honesty and humility. Thanks for setting such a great example!

You know, I have had an issue going on in my mind for a very long time due to what that vulgar man did to someone I know - he was an abuser - and I am just now realizing how it has effected my perspective in a very unbalanced way. Very painful things can do that.

Thank you so much for pm'ing me and helping me to see things more clearly in such a kind way.

 

Wow. this thread has opened up an issue for me I didn't even know I had.

I am sorry to anyone I have hurt on here with my words.

 

Sometimes things I read others say on here do change my mind on things. This has been one of those times.

 

Someone please pass me the kleenex.

[simka2]

You know, I have had an issue going on in my mind for a very long time due to what that vulgar man did to someone I know - he was an abuser - and I am just now realizing how it has effected my perspective in a very unbalanced way. Very painful things can do that.

Thank you so much for pm'ing me and helping me to see things more clearly in such a kind way.

 

Wow. this thread has opened up an issue for me I didn't even know I had.

I am sorry to anyone I have hurt on here with my words.

 

Sometimes things I read others say on here do change my mind on things. This has been one of those times.

 

Someone please pass me the kleenex.

 

It's why I love the boards! Grace, grace to you...and chin up! We all have issues.

 

Okay, we've hijacked this thread enough ;).

[Corraleno]

This took courage, honesty and humility. Thanks for setting such a great example!

 

:iagree:

I love this forum. :grouphug:

 

Jackie

[Granny_Weatherwax]

I haven't read the replies but I wanted to say that as a cc instructor I try to monitor my speech in every class. The colleagues I have been able to observe don't use that sort of language either.

 

If you are uncomfortable speaking to the instructor talk to the dean. The dean can handle it without naming names and pointing fingers.

[Barb_]

You know, I have had an issue going on in my mind for a very long time due to what that vulgar man did to someone I know - he was an abuser - and I am just now realizing how it has effected my perspective in a very unbalanced way. Very painful things can do that.

Thank you so much for pm'ing me and helping me to see things more clearly in such a kind way.

 

Wow. this thread has opened up an issue for me I didn't even know I had.

I am sorry to anyone I have hurt on here with my words.

 

Sometimes things I read others say on here do change my mind on things. This has been one of those times.

 

Someone please pass me the kleenex.

 

:grouphug:

[Granny_Weatherwax]

Here's the thing: The professor is not a Christian. You cannot expect her to behave like one. She isn't purposely blaspheming; she's just ignorant.

 

 

How do you know that from this thread? To me, that's a big assumption.

[Granny_Weatherwax]

I don't get this...I have had brilliant proffessors with Tourettes

 

Explain how this is relevant, please!

 

ETA: or better yet, don't. I finally finished reading all of the thread and I think we should let it drop.

Edited September 20, 2010 by The Dragon Academy

[*********]

I'm the OP, and I thought I'd pop back in here and clear up a few things.

 

I never intened to ask the professor to watch her language. I don't do that. I don't go around asking other people to not say things that offend me. The professor can use whatever language she wants; that's not what I was asking. I never said in this thread, nor did I ever consider in real life, asking the professor to not say "OMG", or anything else. Nor do I want or need to only surround myself with others who think and speak just like me, as has been suggested in a few comments. I get that the world is what it is. I don't live in a bubble, and I don't want to. :)

 

I wanted to get other people's opinions on whether or not I was in some way endorsing or agreeing with the blasphemy by continuing to take this class that I have paid for. I was thinking along the lines of that if I had paid to go to a movie and the actors blasphemed, I would get up and leave. I wanted to understand how the two situations were different, if they were.

 

Some of the comments on this thread were very helpful in helping me think through the whole situation. I realize the difference is that the class is something I am choosing to participate in for education, and the fact that the professor happens to blaspheme really doesn't have any bearing on that. Much the same as if the professor were to, say, be a liar, or a thief, or an adulterer, or commit any other sin. It's really all the same, and the Lord doesn't count me as 'participating' in the sin because I'm under her instruction for three hours a week.

 

And, I'm not interested in debating what each of us underststands to be blasphemy. It's ok if we don't all agree on that, too. :)

[Granny_Weatherwax]

I'm the OP, and I thought I'd pop back in here and clear up a few things.

:)

:grouphug:

[3littlekeets]

I'm the OP, and I thought I'd pop back in here and clear up a few things.

 

I never intened to ask the professor to watch her language. I don't do that. I don't go around asking other people to not say things that offend me. The professor can use whatever language she wants; that's not what I was asking. I never said in this thread, nor did I ever consider in real life, asking the professor to not say "OMG", or anything else. Nor do I want or need to only surround myself with others who think and speak just like me, as has been suggested in a few comments. I get that the world is what it is. I don't live in a bubble, and I don't want to. :)

 

I wanted to get other people's opinions on whether or not I was in some way endorsing or agreeing with the blasphemy by continuing to take this class that I have paid for. I was thinking along the lines of that if I had paid to go to a movie and the actors blasphemed, I would get up and leave. I wanted to understand how the two situations were different, if they were.

 

Some of the comments on this thread were very helpful in helping me think through the whole situation. I realize the difference is that the class is something I am choosing to participate in for education, and the fact that the professor happens to blaspheme really doesn't have any bearing on that. Much the same as if the professor were to, say, be a liar, or a thief, or an adulterer, or commit any other sin. It's really all the same, and the Lord doesn't count me as 'participating' in the sin because I'm under her instruction for three hours a week.

 

And, I'm not interested in debating what each of us underststands to be blasphemy. It's ok if we don't all agree on that, too. :)

 

:grouphug: Bethany! That makes much more sense to me. I was under the impression you were going to talk to her or a chair or dean about her language. Sorry that I participated heavily in hijacking the intention of your thread. :grouphug:

[*********]

:grouphug: Bethany! That makes much more sense to me. Sorry that I participated heavily in hijacking the intention of your thread. :grouphug:

 

No apologies needed. If I'd only learn to be more clear in my original post, it'd be easier for others to understand what I'm talking about. Sometimes, it's more like I'm still thinking it through myself when I post, you know?

[MamaSheep]

I don't want to stir the pot, I really don't, but here's my thoughts on your thoughts.

 

Thanks for sharing your thoughts on my thoughts. It's always nice when people can discuss important issues like this politely, and I appreciate your doing that. I don't want to stir pots either, but I do have a different perspective on this than you, so I thought I would just share a few of my thoughts on your thoughts on my thoughts. :)

 

Since Jews and Christians are not systematically and legally denied the rights of other groups in the US that's where, for me, the difference comes.

 

I hear you on this. And it may be that I am a little extra sensitive on this subject because my faith is one that not all that many years ago WAS systematically and legally denied the rights of other groups in the U.S. My not so distant anscestors were denied legal redress for the vandalism and theft of their property, were the subjects of a governmental extermination order making it legal to kill them on sight without due process of law, had their voting rights stripped, were legally restrained from giving monetary support to their wives and children, and were not allowed to serve on juries if they professed specific religious beliefs. Among other things. A very strange episode for the U.S., but it happened once, so it doesn't seem all that far-fetched, to me, for it to happen again.

 

Also, religion is a choice. As LDS, you do believe that's a choice, do you not? (I know children can't be baptized until they're 8, and can be said to make a decision on their own). Straight? You didn't choose that? Gay? You didn't choose that--and yet, you can be marginalized and dehumanized, so says the government and most churches.

 

That is certainly one way of looking at it, and a very common perspective these days. I have a little different point of view. I think everyone has deep longings and urges of various kinds--be they physical, intellectual, or spiritual--that we don't "choose". I would agree with you that a longing for a romantic relationship with a member of the same sex is not generally something people "choose". I would also say, however, that deep spiritual longings and passions are ALSO not things we "choose". And many of us have insatiable intellectual longings that drive us to learn all we can about a wide variety of things through many different channels of learning in our lives. There are many kinds of longings that we have, even though we don't necessarily pick and choose them. However, I certainly believe that we have a choice in what we do about our longings. A person who experiences attraction to members of the same sex, for example, might "choose" to keep that information to themselves, believing it to be nobody's business but their own. They might "choose" to share that information openly with close friends and family members, but not the community at large. They might "choose", on the other hand, to join openly and publicly with a cultural group that shares similar longings, and supports one another in seeking ways to fulfill those longings. They might even "choose" to formally join an organized social, political, or other institutional association that may be dedicated to educating others about issues they care about, or seeking social or legal change, or some other related cause. Similarly, a person with deep spiritual longings might "choose" to keep that information private and try to "pass" as an irreligious person in order to fit in better in society. They might "choose" to share their spiritual longings only with close family and supportive friends. Or they might "choose" to become publicly and openly part of a cultural group that shares similar longings and supports one another in seeking ways to fulfill those longings. They might even "choose" to formally join an organized association that promotes and supports educating others about issues they care about, seeking changes in society, or other related causes. In this sense I agree with you that religion is a "choice". A person "chooses" to what degree he or she will act on those spiritual longings, and may "choose" to affiliate, or not, with a particular religious organization. However, I believe that those core-level longings for intimacy with God are no more a "choice" than a core-level longing for intimacy with another person. The choice isn't in how we "feel", but in what we "choose" to do about it. The same principle could be extended to intellectual longings. A person could choose to do nothing about them, to study in private, or to enroll at a formal educational institution.

 

So I would agree with you that open affiliation with a religious culture, community, or organization is a "choice", but if we go there, then I would have to say that open affiliation with a GLBT culture, community, or organization is equally a "choice". And I would have to say that the deep longings involved in both are equally involuntary.

 

I would also say that I think it is equally wrong to dehumanize or marginalize anybody based on these involuntary, inner longings, in either case.

 

That's why it's nice for GLBT to know what places/what people are safe.

 

I agree. In fact, I would go a step further and say that it's nice for EVERYONE to know what places/people are safe. And as a society, I think it behooves us to be mindful of the safety of as many of the members of society as we can manage--ideally ALL of them.

 

Nothing says other professors don't put up indicators of what/who they support. When I went to a state college, I put up Bible verses all over my office. I even solicited prayers from my students when I was a grad student TA. When I worked in a government building, I put Bible verses all over my desk to memorize and think on during the day. (Eek, I think back on it with no small embarassment, actually). Certainly, the professor can create examples about Johnny the missionary and his little missionary children. But, I think that's a completely different issue than trying to support groups which are legally disenfranchised, and who did not choose their area of disenfranchisement. (See above).

 

T.

 

I just want to clarify that my point in my previous post was not that college professors should bend over backwards to make sure they don't offend anyone. My point was only that it is a kind gesture on the part of a professor when they are willing to make an effort to be welcoming, inclusive, and friendly to ALL members of their classes, particularly when doing so would involve making only a minor adjustment and would not infringe on their own personal convictions. Right now in academia it is not a popular thing to be accommodating to people on religious issues, and I think it takes guts for a professor to be willing to do so, especially if they are not, themselves, religious.

Edited September 20, 2010 by MamaSheep

[Greta]

Several people have explained why they think putting this on the teacher evaluations is a bad idea, and I just wanted to say that I see your point. When I was in college (longer ago than I care to admit), they really didn't seem to be a big deal. The most "controversial" thing I remember about teacher evaluations was a class in which a few people wrote that they wished the prof would go back to using yellow chalk on the green-board, and the rest of us really preferred the plain white chalk. :lol: I know that I always wrote ten times as many positive things as I did negative ones. And I was very much under the impression that these evaluations were something that the professors did for their own information, and not because it went into any sort of "permanent record" or was used in their promotions or tenures. Most profs didn't even do them, so at that time and that school, it really wasn't the serious matter that many of you have explained that it now is. So I just wanted to say my bad, I didn't know.

[FlockOfSillies]

I'd say you should either talk to the prof, or say nothing at all. Talking to the dean, or noting it in the evaluation won't keep you anonymous, IMO -- she'll know it was you based on your headcovering.

 

How about something like this: "Prof, I'm really enjoying the course, and I'm learning so much. I just wanted to bring up one little thing, and it seems somewhat silly, but it's a sticking point with me, so I need to mention it. You say "OMG" a lot, to the point where I don't think you even realize you're saying it, but it's like nails on a chalkboard to me. It's very distracting. I know it's a lot for me to ask you to stop doing something that's clearly an ingrained habit, but if you could do it less often, I would be so grateful. I really want to get as much out of this class as I can, and I appreciate your work."

 

Off the top of my head, I can't point to any Scriptural references that address the concept of indirectly supporting unbiblical behavior with our money. (If you have a certain passage in mind, let me know.) I would guess that Paul, Priscilla and Aquila sold their tents to all sorts of people, without questioning what was going to take place inside those tents.

 

This is just one of those disputable areas where your conscience may lead you to do something different from another believer in the same situation. If your choice is not from full faith and confidence in your freedom in Christ, then it is sin for you. I don't believe you are helping this teacher sin, but you need to be convinced of that in your own mind. You may have a different opinion about it 20 years from now, but that's not who you are right now.

 

All I can say is, don't be too eager to impute other people's sinfulness onto yourself. They -- not you -- are accountable to God for what they say and do.

 

HTH.

[freethinkermama]

Thank _you_ for being so lovely about this discussion :)

 

I'm very aware of the discrimination in the past against the LDS. I always think that people who know what it's like to suffer it discrimination, or have it in their past, should be more sensitive and understanding to those who are suffering the same thing these days. But I know that's not always the case.

 

Yes, but when we talk about "affiliation". . . this is where the difference comes. You don't have to be a part of a GLBT "group" to be gay. Gay people are discriminated against and denied basic right because they are gay, not because they belong to a group. Yes, joining the group is voluntary, being gay isn't. Being gay is what gets you dehumanized and discriminated against, separately from being part of a group or not. This really is different from religious affiliation.

 

You're absolutely right! All people should have the right to safety and humanity. But, there are some who aren't right now, and we ought to be doing our best to point that out and to support those who are being discriminated against. It's all well and good to say, "Let's treat everyone the same," but it also very important to make sure that we recognize those who aren't being treated equally so that we can focus there. To disregard that is, I think, disingenuous.

 

When Mormons are denied the right to marry, take care of the deceased bodies of their partners, join the military, etc. I'll make sure to stand up for your rights and put a big friendly LDS sticker on my classroom door :)

 

T.

 

 

 

Thanks for sharing your thoughts on my thoughts. It's always nice when people can discuss important issues like this politely, and I appreciate your doing that. I don't want to stir pots either, but I do have a different perspective on this than you, so I thought I would just share a few of my thoughts on your thoughts on my thoughts. :)

 

 

 

I hear you on this. And it may be that I am a little extra sensitive on this subject because my faith is one that not all that many years ago WAS systematically and legally denied the rights of other groups in the U.S. My not so distant anscestors were denied legal redress for the vandalism and theft of their property, were the subjects of a governmental extermination order making it legal to kill them on sight without due process of law, had their voting rights stripped, were legally restrained from giving monetary support to their wives and children, and were not allowed to serve on juries if they professed specific religious beliefs. Among other things. A very strange episode for the U.S., but it happened once, so it doesn't seem all that far-fetched, to me, for it to happen again.

 

 

 

That is certainly one way of looking at it, and a very common perspective these days. I have a little different point of view. I think everyone has deep longings and urges of various kinds--be they physical, intellectual, or spiritual--that we don't "choose". I would agree with you that a longing for a romantic relationship with a member of the same sex is not generally something people "choose". I would also say, however, that deep spiritual longings and passions are ALSO not things we "choose". And many of us have insatiable intellectual longings that drive us to learn all we can about a wide variety of things through many different channels of learning in our lives. There are many kinds of longings that we have, even though we don't necessarily pick and choose them. However, I certainly believe that we have a choice in what we do about our longings. A person who experiences attraction to members of the same sex, for example, might "choose" to keep that information to themselves, believing it to be nobody's business but their own. They might "choose" to share that information openly with close friends and family members, but not the community at large. They might "choose", on the other hand, to join openly and publicly with a cultural group that shares similar longings, and supports one another in seeking ways to fulfill those longings. They might even "choose" to formally join an organized social, political, or other institutional association that may be dedicated to educating others about issues they care about, or seeking social or legal change, or some other related cause. Similarly, a person with deep spiritual longings might "choose" to keep that information private and try to "pass" as an irreligious person in order to fit in better in society. They might "choose" to share their spiritual longings only with close family and supportive friends. Or they might "choose" to become publicly and openly part of a cultural group that shares similar longings and supports one another in seeking ways to fulfill those longings. They might even "choose" to formally join an organized association that promotes and supports educating others about issues they care about, seeking changes in society, or other related causes. In this sense I agree with you that religion is a "choice". A person "chooses" to what degree he or she will act on those spiritual longings, and may "choose" to affiliate, or not, with a particular religious organization. However, I believe that those core-level longings for intimacy with God are no more a "choice" than a core-level longing for intimacy with another person. The choice isn't in how we "feel", but in what we "choose" to do about it. The same principle could be extended to intellectual longings. A person could choose to do nothing about them, to study in private, or to enroll at a formal educational institution.

 

So I would agree with you that open affiliation with a religious culture, community, or organization is a "choice", but if we go there, then I would have to say that open affiliation with a GLBT culture, community, or organization is equally a "choice". And I would have to say that the deep longings involved in both are equally involuntary.

 

I would also say that I think it is equally wrong to dehumanize or marginalize anybody based on these involuntary, inner longings, in either case.

 

 

 

I agree. In fact, I would go a step further and say that it's nice for EVERYONE to know what places/people are safe. And as a society, I think it behooves us to be mindful of the safety of as many of the members of society as we can manage--ideally ALL of them.

 

 

 

I just want to clarify that my point in my previous post was not that college professors should bend over backwards to make sure they don't offend anyone. My point was only that it is a kind gesture on the part of a professor when they are willing to make an effort to be welcoming, inclusive, and friendly to ALL members of their classes, particularly when doing so would involve making only a minor adjustment and would not infringe on their own personal convictions. Right now in academia it is not a popular thing to be accommodating to people on religious issues, and I think it takes guts for a professor to be willing to do so, especially if they are not, themselves, religious.

Edited September 20, 2010 by freethinkermama

[Laurie4b]

:001_huh::confused::001_huh:

 

astrid

 

I meant this only as an illustration that we more easily recognize that there are religious sensibilities at stake and are willing to accomodate them when they are other than what has traditionally been the dominant religious group in the US--of Christians. So if a Muslim, Hindu, Jewish, etc. student were to speak to a professor and tell him/her that what she was saying was religiously hurtful or offensive, (or if a person were to have written a thread about it) as a culture we are primed to listen to that and accomodate. If a member of the Christian religion, which has been in the majority religious culture in the US has the same types of feelings, those tend to be more easily disregarded as not being worth accomodating, but rather there is more feeling that it is incumbent on that person to consider whether it is she who is at fault for how she perceives the situation and for her feelings . I don't think there would be as many suggestions that a woman of a different faith (one which has been or is a nonmajority religious) silently put up with it and adjust. (There are of course bigots who would say the opposite, but there are few if any on this board, nor would that point of view be typically represented at community colleges.)

 

I don't think it's appropriate for people to be telling the OP that she shouldn't think what she thinks religiously, or feel what she feels, or that she shouldn't have attended an educational setting not run by her religious group or should be correcting her views on blasphemy. I don't think the majority of responses would have been the same had the OP been expressing offense of religious sensibilities that weren't Christian. I think the same level of respect should extend to all groups. She is not "wrong" somehow for thinking/feeling/believing what she does. To me, it's helpful, in matters religious or political, to ask oneself if i would be reacting the same way if it was the same issue, but different "group."

Edited September 20, 2010 by Laurie4b

[katilac]

Several people have commented that "oh my god" would be unacceptable in a professional setting, and now I'm wondering if I'm the only one who finds that not to be true at all? I've never seen anyone so much as blink an eye at that or its variants, at my workplaces or dh's, which have ranged over three different states. Certainly no one would be called to the carpet over it.

 

I had to laugh a bit at the suggestion to cross herself, or really the response to that suggestion, because that actually would probably not be noticed in my neck of the woods! (heavily Catholic)

[freethinkermama]

I've been wondering that myself. In fact, when you mentioned your area being Catholic, that made me ponder something else.

 

I read an interesting piece--I'll look for it--on religious exclamations and acceptability. The writer was a female, Ph.D. and a devout Catholic, just to play those cards for her. And her thoughts were that Catholics tend to partake regularly in exclamations such as "Oh, my God" because of their tradition of ejaculatory prayer. Saying "Jesus, Mary, and Joseph," or "Mother of God," or even "Jesus Christ" aloud was encouraged, and even believed, by some, to help a person out of Purgatory. (I didn't know that this was still practiced, actually, until I was reviewing a Catholic instructional book for children. I worked for a Christian professional magazine, and we were often sent books to review and promote at the magazine. The book was very specific about the types of exclamations that might ease a loved-one's time, or one's own time, in Purgatory.)

 

It's possibly the availablilty heuristic that makes me take note, but I remember from my fundamentalist years, that I was always shocked at how my Catholic friends woud so freely partake in what I considered shocking. I wonder it's somehow related.

 

Ponderingly yours,

 

T.

 

Several people have commented that "oh my god" would be unacceptable in a professional setting, and now I'm wondering if I'm the only one who finds that not to be true at all? I've never seen anyone so much as blink an eye at that or its variants, at my workplaces or dh's, which have ranged over three different states. Certainly no one would be called to the carpet over it.

 

I had to laugh a bit at the suggestion to cross herself, or really the response to that suggestion, because that actually would probably not be noticed in my neck of the woods! (heavily Catholic)

[mommaduck]

When Mormons are denied the right to marry...

 

T.

In a sense they have been. Their leaders had to change certain tenets of their faith because of it. They believe in marriage, but their marriage is limited to one spouse, just as marriage is limited to those of opposite genders.

[freethinkermama]

That's an interesting questions, Laurie, and I've been thinking on it a bit.

 

Here's what I come up with. Yes, I can definitely see the point about being potentially more cognizant of traditions/religions that are unlike those that are most common around us, but. . . I'm unsure, and I really do mean unsure, about being prepared to listen and accommodate simply based on something's degree of differences. But, then again. . . I dunnoh.

 

I once had a Saudi student who wrote on my evaluation that I didn't wear shoes in class and that I "always must to wear shoes!" I slipped off my shoes one day in class, I think I was getting a blister on my foot, and I don't think anyone would have noticed but I subsequently stubbed my toe on a desk. :) If he had mentioned it at the time, I would have been more careful about always keeping my shoes on--but that was something I would normally have done in class anyway. It's just appropriate to wear shoes in class, and I knew that. (He didn't complain about anything else because I wore long dresses and a headcovering at the time, but I do wonder. . . .)

 

If a student came to me and please said not to use "Gosh" in class because it was blasphemy (I've heard a number of people say any type of exclamation is simply a cover-up for vulgarity, and anything starting with a "g" or "j" sound is just a cover-up for blasphemy of "God" . . . Well. . .

 

And back to your point. . .

 

I think the difference is between stark differences, as we might see between Muslim/Buddhist/Sikh practices and those of the priviledged religious customs/beliefs. Most of our US culture is already attuned to the most aggregious rude things that can be done against the prevailing religious culture and does try not to do those things, since it's part of the culture. Accommodations that might be made for those of the prevailing religious culture, have, for the most part, already been made. The accommodation for "oh, my god" might be different because so few people actually see it as religious and cruel to Christians. And the fact that it is EVERYWHERE! Perhaps that's why the response on this thread has been so great.

 

Most obviously people, even most Christians on this thread, don't see "Oh, my God" as blasphemous, any more than they see "Gosh," or "Jeez" as blasphemous. (Though, some, admittedly do). How far is one obligated to take religious accommodation? I would certainly try to avoid saying OMG, but I'd find it absurd to purge my speech of all exclamations over one, quite unusual, plea to religious belief.

 

As to telling the OP maybe she should go somewhere else to school, I'm pretty sure if there were Sikhs here upset that their male instructors didn't wear turbans, we would kindly point out that not all people are Sikhs and that perhaps they should go to a Sikh school if that's what they wanted. I don't think that the OP is being singled out there. If she wants people to behave up to her particular standards, she should go somewhere that insists upon them. Any other group on the boards would be told the same thing. At least that I'm pretty sure of. :)

 

T.

 

 

I meant this only as an illustration that we more easily recognize that there are religious sensibilities at stake and are willing to accomodate them when they are other than what has traditionally been the dominant religious group in the US--of Christians. So if a Muslim, Hindu, Jewish, etc. student were to speak to a professor and tell him/her that what she was saying was religiously hurtful or offensive, (or if a person were to have written a thread about it) as a culture we are primed to listen to that and accomodate. If a member of the Christian religion, which has been in the majority religious culture in the US has the same types of feelings, those tend to be more easily disregarded as not being worth accomodating, but rather there is more feeling that it is incumbent on that person to consider whether it is she who is at fault for how she perceives the situation and for her feelings . I don't think there would be as many suggestions that a woman of a different faith (one which has been or is a nonmajority religious) silently put up with it and adjust. (There are of course bigots who would say the opposite, but there are few if any on this board, nor would that point of view be typically represented at community colleges.)

 

I don't think it's appropriate for people to be telling the OP that she shouldn't think what she thinks religiously, or feel what she feels, or that she shouldn't have attended an educational setting not run by her religious group or should be correcting her views on blasphemy. I don't think the majority of responses would have been the same had the OP been expressing offense of religious sensibilities that weren't Christian. I think the same level of respect should extend to all groups. She is not "wrong" somehow for thinking/feeling/believing what she does. To me, it's helpful, in matters religious or political, to ask oneself if i would be reacting the same way if it was the same issue, but different "group."

[MamaSheep]

Thank _you_ for being so lovely about this discussion :)

 

I'm very aware of the discrimination in the past against the LDS. I always think that people who know what it's like to suffer it discrimination, or have it in their past, should be more sensitive and understanding to those who are suffering the same thing these days. But I know that's not always the case.

Thank you for understanding that I am sensitive to this issue. :)

 

Yes, but when we talk about "affiliation". . . this is where the difference comes. You don't have to be a part of a GLBT "group" to be gay. Gay people are discriminated against and denied basic right because they are gay, not because they belong to a group. Yes, joining the group is voluntary, being gay isn't. Being gay is what gets you dehumanized and discriminated against, separately from being part of a group or not. This really is different from religious affiliation.

 

I don't think we're going to entirely agree about this. I agree with you that one does not have to join a particular "group" to be gay, or to be treated poorly because of that. All it takes is to identify oneself as part of that general cultural community, or to exhibit some behavior that a hostile person might associate with being "gay", such as a manner of dress or speech. It's tragic, I agree.

 

Simlarly, though, one does not have to be affilliated with any religious "group", in order to be "religious", or "spiritual", or whatever term one prefers, or to be belittled, mocked, and marginalized because of it. One doesn't even have to join up with any particular "group" in order to be a "Christian". One merely has to identify oneself as belonging to that general cultural community, OR exhibit some behavior that another person would associate with that cultural community, such as a manner of dress or speech. This is particularly the case when dealing with a behavior that is seen as outside the majority "norm". As an example, the original poster in this thread did not mention affiliation with any particular religious organization, and the posters who have responded that they, too, would be uncomfortable in the same situation do not all share membership in a single religious organization. It's not the "affiliation" that's causing the tension--in most cases we don't even KNOW the person's group affiliation, or whether they even have one. Yet they are being told that their discomfort doesn't matter because their feelings on the subject are not "normal".

 

You're absolutely right! All people should have the right to safety and humanity. But, there are some who aren't right now, and we ought to be doing our best to point that out and to support those who are being discriminated against. It's all well and good to say, "Let's treat everyone the same," but it also very important to make sure that we recognize those who aren't being treated equally so that we can focus there. To disregard that is, I think, disingenuous.

 

I am glad that we agree that all people should have the right to safety and humanity. I agree with you that there are some--many--who aren't right now, and that needs to change. However, if we really support the right of ALL people to be treated equally with decency, civility, and common courtesy, then it is counterproductive to say it's ok to be insensitive to one group, ANY group, because we have to focus on building up another group. If we support the practice of taking sides we are acting counter to the idea of equality, regardless of which side we choose to take.

 

Also, I think it is important to recognize that one can support the civil, humane treatment of a group of people without supporting that group's ideals or behavior.

 

 

When Mormons are denied the right to marry, take care of the deceased bodies of their partners, join the military, etc. I'll make sure to stand up for your rights and put a big friendly LDS sticker on my classroom door :)

 

T.

 

I appreciate the sentiment.

Edited September 20, 2010 by MamaSheep

[simka2]

I don't think it's appropriate for people to be telling the OP that she shouldn't think what she thinks religiously, or feel what she feels, or that she shouldn't have attended an educational setting not run by her religious group or should be correcting her views on blasphemy. I don't think the majority of responses would have been the same had the OP been expressing offense of religious sensibilities that weren't Christian. I think the same level of respect should extend to all groups. She is not "wrong" somehow for thinking/feeling/believing what she does. To me, it's helpful, in matters religious or political, to ask oneself if i would be reacting the same way if it was the same issue, but different "group."

 

I can only speak for myself, but it was never my intent to tell her how to think. I was expressing MY thoughts on what she was calling "blasphemy." She is more than welcome to believe what she wants. My only hope is that one chooses to believe something they have done everything in their power to see it from all angles...and make an informed choice.

 

I think this thread would have been very different if the only thing changed had been the OP saying "I hold the belife this is blasphemy...so in light of my belife, what should I do?" Something along those lines. In hindsight, I think she meant to say something like that, but just wasn't able to put it in words.

 

Many were simply responding to her definate statements. And know one knows how close a look she had taken on the theological position of what is blasphemy. So, I think it is very understandble for people to reason that if she rethinks wether this is blasphemy...her whole ethical dilema is solved. Make sense?

Edited September 20, 2010 by simka2

[MamaSheep]

That's an interesting questions, Laurie, and I've been thinking on it a bit.

 

Here's what I come up with. Yes, I can definitely see the point about being potentially more cognizant of traditions/religions that are unlike those that are most common around us, but. . . I'm unsure, and I really do mean unsure, about being prepared to listen and accommodate simply based on something's degree of differences. But, then again. . . I dunnoh.

 

I once had a Saudi student who wrote on my evaluation that I didn't wear shoes in class and that I "always must to wear shoes!" I slipped off my shoes one day in class, I think I was getting a blister on my foot, and I don't think anyone would have noticed but I subsequently stubbed my toe on a desk. :) If he had mentioned it at the time, I would have been more careful about always keeping my shoes on--but that was something I would normally have done in class anyway. It's just appropriate to wear shoes in class, and I knew that. (He didn't complain about anything else because I wore long dresses and a headcovering at the time, but I do wonder. . . .)

 

If a student came to me and please said not to use "Gosh" in class because it was blasphemy (I've heard a number of people say any type of exclamation is simply a cover-up for vulgarity, and anything starting with a "g" or "j" sound is just a cover-up for blasphemy of "God" . . . Well. . .

 

And back to your point. . .

 

I think the difference is between stark differences, as we might see between Muslim/Buddhist/Sikh practices and those of the priviledged religious customs/beliefs. Most of our US culture is already attuned to the most aggregious rude things that can be done against the prevailing religious culture and does try not to do those things, since it's part of the culture. Accommodations that might be made for those of the prevailing religious culture, have, for the most part, already been made. The accommodation for "oh, my god" might be different because so few people actually see it as religious and cruel to Christians. And the fact that it is EVERYWHERE! Perhaps that's why the response on this thread has been so great.

 

Most obviously people, even most Christians on this thread, don't see "Oh, my God" as blasphemous, any more than they see "Gosh," or "Jeez" as blasphemous. (Though, some, admittedly do). How far is one obligated to take religious accommodation? I would certainly try to avoid saying OMG, but I'd find it absurd to purge my speech of all exclamations over one, quite unusual, plea to religious belief.

 

As to telling the OP maybe she should go somewhere else to school, I'm pretty sure if there were Sikhs here upset that their male instructors didn't wear turbans, we would kindly point out that not all people are Sikhs and that perhaps they should go to a Sikh school if that's what they wanted. I don't think that the OP is being singled out there. If she wants people to behave up to her particular standards, she should go somewhere that insists upon them. Any other group on the boards would be told the same thing. At least that I'm pretty sure of. :)

 

T.

 

I am finding it quite fascinating that you say that if your Sikh student had mentioned it at the time, you'd have been more careful to wear shoes--at least during the class when you knew he'd be present, and yet you would be offended if a Christian student mentioned that your language was a distraction and see no reason to make any adjustment, even just for the time she was in your class. The reason you give, if I understand you correctly, is that this person would be clearly a minority within the predominant majority culture, and therefore should not be accommodated.

I am wondering, would you feel differently if the person letting you know she was uncomfortable with your usage of the word God was Sikh, or a Sunni? If the person making the request were a member of a religious group that is NOT part of the religious majority here, would that be different to you than if the person is part of a small minority within that religious majority?

 

I am not trying to be snarky here, I'm truly curious. I'm interested in understanding how you choose to draw your lines. But if this is too personal, please do feel free to ignore my question.

Edited September 20, 2010 by MamaSheep

[wapiti]

Several people have commented that "oh my god" would be unacceptable in a professional setting, and now I'm wondering if I'm the only one who finds that not to be true at all? I've never seen anyone so much as blink an eye at that or its variants, at my workplaces or dh's, which have ranged over three different states. Certainly no one would be called to the carpet over it.

 

I had to laugh a bit at the suggestion to cross herself, or really the response to that suggestion, because that actually would probably not be noticed in my neck of the woods! (heavily Catholic)

 

This has been my experience as well re: professional settings. (FWIW, I would expect classroom language to be somewhat more formal than law office language, but nowhere near as formal as courtroom language.)

 

This also brings up the denominational issue. My guess is that far fewer Catholics have any issue with "OMG" than various other denominations.

[simka2]

This has been my experience as well re: professional settings. (FWIW, I would expect classroom language to be somewhat more formal than law office language, but nowhere near as formal as courtroom language.)

 

This also brings up the denominational issue. My guess is that far fewer Catholics have any issue with "OMG" than various other denominations.

 

Dh and I were talking about this as well. He works for an international corporation and is on numerous conference calls every week. He said, the language is very crass, but even though he chooses not to speak like that he really doesn't care when others do.

[JeneralMom]

I was thinking about it and I cannot even think of a time when I would use OMG when teaching. Usually I use it as sort of an exclamation of surprise (like, OMG that's a big pumpkin!) and I am just never surprised by the material I am teaching. I asked DH (who also taught Uni level) and he cannot think of a time he would have said it either.

[Laurie4b]

That's an interesting questions, Laurie, and I've been thinking on it a bit.

 

Here's what I come up with. Yes, I can definitely see the point about being potentially more cognizant of traditions/religions that are unlike those that are most common around us, but. . . I'm unsure, and I really do mean unsure, about being prepared to listen and accommodate simply based on something's degree of differences. But, then again. . . I dunnoh.

 

I once had a Saudi student who wrote on my evaluation that I didn't wear shoes in class and that I "always must to wear shoes!" I slipped off my shoes one day in class, I think I was getting a blister on my foot, and I don't think anyone would have noticed but I subsequently stubbed my toe on a desk. :) If he had mentioned it at the time, I would have been more careful about always keeping my shoes on--but that was something I would normally have done in class anyway. It's just appropriate to wear shoes in class, and I knew that. (He didn't complain about anything else because I wore long dresses and a headcovering at the time, but I do wonder. . . .)

 

If a student came to me and please said not to use "Gosh" in class because it was blasphemy (I've heard a number of people say any type of exclamation is simply a cover-up for vulgarity, and anything starting with a "g" or "j" sound is just a cover-up for blasphemy of "God" . . . Well. . .

 

And back to your point. . .

 

I think the difference is between stark differences, as we might see between Muslim/Buddhist/Sikh practices and those of the priviledged religious customs/beliefs. Most of our US culture is already attuned to the most aggregious rude things that can be done against the prevailing religious culture and does try not to do those things, since it's part of the culture. Accommodations that might be made for those of the prevailing religious culture, have, for the most part, already been made. The accommodation for "oh, my god" might be different because so few people actually see it as religious and cruel to Christians. And the fact that it is EVERYWHERE! Perhaps that's why the response on this thread has been so great.

 

Most obviously people, even most Christians on this thread, don't see "Oh, my God" as blasphemous, any more than they see "Gosh," or "Jeez" as blasphemous. (Though, some, admittedly do). How far is one obligated to take religious accommodation? I would certainly try to avoid saying OMG, but I'd find it absurd to purge my speech of all exclamations over one, quite unusual, plea to religious belief.

 

As to telling the OP maybe she should go somewhere else to school, I'm pretty sure if there were Sikhs here upset that their male instructors didn't wear turbans, we would kindly point out that not all people are Sikhs and that perhaps they should go to a Sikh school if that's what they wanted. I don't think that the OP is being singled out there. If she wants people to behave up to her particular standards, she should go somewhere that insists upon them. Any other group on the boards would be told the same thing. At least that I'm pretty sure of. :)

 

T.

 

To me, there is a huge difference between being willing to change something I might be saying without thinking and without particularly meaning to and being asked to go out and buy a turban and wear it in a culture which doesn't wear turbans. I am a barefoot person, do go barefoot at work, and wouldn't necessarily see anything wrong with it, but if your Saudi student was in my class and expressed his aversion, I'd try to accomodate it.

 

I think religious sensibilities are enough to change something that is meaningless to the prof anyway, whether it is saying gosh or something else I and others regard as innocuous. Religious sensibilities would be important enough to me to wear shoes when I would prefer not to--simply out of respect. Though the OP was apparently only thinking of whether she was supporting something she experiences as blasphemy (whether other Christians do or not is rather off topic), I think it would be appropriate for someone of any religion to ask for minor accomodation on this level. There is no hard and fast line between minor accomodation and what I would draw the line at (wearing a turban would involve rather more than trying to watch what comes out of my mouth), I think the polite thing to do is to accomodate when possible. And when only a minor accomodation would solve the problem (if that's what she wanted, though she didn't), then I would wonder why people would be making suggestions that she should leave the educational institution rather than ask.

 

As for this part: "Most of our US culture is already attuned to the most aggregious rude things that can be done against the prevailing religious culture and does try not to do those things, since it's part of the culture. "

 

What current accomodations do you see made for Christians as a matter of course? I don't see our broader culture as Christian, and there is much that is egregiously "offensive" , so there is something I"m missing between my perspective and yours.

[idnib]

I meant this only as an illustration that we more easily recognize that there are religious sensibilities at stake and are willing to accomodate them when they are other than what has traditionally been the dominant religious group in the US--of Christians. So if a Muslim, Hindu, Jewish, etc. student were to speak to a professor and tell him/her that what she was saying was religiously hurtful or offensive, (or if a person were to have written a thread about it) as a culture we are primed to listen to that and accomodate. If a member of the Christian religion, which has been in the majority religious culture in the US has the same types of feelings, those tend to be more easily disregarded as not being worth accomodating, but rather there is more feeling that it is incumbent on that person to consider whether it is she who is at fault for how she perceives the situation and for her feelings .

 

I think this could possibly be because people are more aware of the conflicts, debates, and vagaries of the religion/culture they are most familiar with, and are more sensitive to the ones they don't know as well. And within that, a much higher percentage of people in this country are Christian so you see the effect you're talking about.

 

I'm Muslim and I'm not a professor. If I were a professor, and a Muslim student came to me and said I had to do X (X=dress a certain way, speak a certain way, etc.) I would know the background of some of these requests and having heard them before and decided for myself, I would probably ignore the request. Or I might try to accommodate it, but because I agreed and was grateful he had pointed it out. If a Christian, Jew, Buddhist, Hindu etc came to me and told me what I was doing was offensive, I would be more likely to accommodate them based on my lack of familiarity with their religion and frankly, because I would be embarrased.

 

So I'm not sure if it's the "dominant" group as much as it is the "other" and there happens to be a large difference in group size. In the almost 100% Muslim country of my origin, people would be mortified if they did something offensive to a visiting Christian, but would not be that bothered is a fellow Muslim was offended by something because they would understand the ins and outs of that offense and think some people were too sensitive, or that if they made the accommodation an equal number of people would be offended the other way. In other words, they would be familiar with the "offense".

 

IOW, if someone came up to me and said, "Wow, that's offensive to Buddhists" I would censor myself, as the alternatives are to continue to offend or to learn all the vagaries of Buddhism and decide for myself. If a Muslim came and said it was offensive I don't wear shoes I would probably roll my eyes. :tongue_smilie:

 

ETA: I would probably choose to try and make time to find out more about the offense I had committed, but I would definitely censor first. I'm not against informing myself, just not offending people while I find the time to do it!

Edited September 20, 2010 by idnib

[freethinkermama]

To me, there is a huge difference between being willing to change something I might be saying without thinking and without particularly meaning to and being asked to go out and buy a turban and wear it in a culture which doesn't wear turbans. I am a barefoot person, do go barefoot at work, and wouldn't necessarily see anything wrong with it, but if your Saudi student was in my class and expressed his aversion, I'd try to accomodate it.

 

I think religious sensibilities are enough to change something that is meaningless to the prof anyway, whether it is saying gosh or something else I and others regard as innocuous. Religious sensibilities would be important enough to me to wear shoes when I would prefer not to--simply out of respect. Though the OP was apparently only thinking of whether she was supporting something she experiences as blasphemy (whether other Christians do or not is rather off topic), I think it would be appropriate for someone of any religion to ask for minor accomodation on this level. There is no hard and fast line between minor accomodation and what I would draw the line at (wearing a turban would involve rather more than trying to watch what comes out of my mouth), I think the polite thing to do is to accomodate when possible. And when only a minor accomodation would solve the problem (if that's what she wanted, though she didn't), then I would wonder why people would be making suggestions that she should leave the educational institution rather than ask.

 

As for this part: "Most of our US culture is already attuned to the most aggregious rude things that can be done against the prevailing religious culture and does try not to do those things, since it's part of the culture. "

 

What current accomodations do you see made for Christians as a matter of course? I don't see our broader culture as Christian, and there is much that is egregiously "offensive" , so there is something I"m missing between my perspective and yours.

 

Not accommodations--just cultural matters of course.

 

For example:

 

Christmas break for one. Christmas holiday off. Some state schools, including the university where we live, have Good Friday off. Weekends that include Sunday as a day off of classes and work. These are big ones, and ones, that because of the privileged status of Christianity, are a given. We simply assume these. It's easy for folks to not see them because they're a part of the culture. How about Blue Laws? We still have those in my part of the country. Yes, Christianity is privileged. Hugely so. Say "God" and Christians automatically assume their deity is being invoked. :) Convert to Christianity in jail, and you're more likely to be parolled. (Far more than if you become a non-believer :)) You're more likely to be voted into office as any branch of Christian. If you're atheist, you can darn-near forget about it.

 

If you like, you can Google "Christian privilege". You might not totally agree with everything you read. About.com has a great list, and even if you don't agree 100% perhaps it will help you understand how predominantly Christian our culture is. It's hard to feel wet when you live in the water.

 

*Christians can assume they will hear songs, see programs, etc. related to their major holidays all over the media.

 

* Christians can erect signs and billboards without expecting vandalism (Google "atheist signs defaced" to see dozens of signs in the last year that have been defaced.)

 

* Look around your town. How many Christian buildings do you see compared to those of other faiths?

 

* When someone says "thank god" or "god bless you" (Or, "Oh my god" :)) you can assume they're talking about the Christian one.

 

* Christians will find their holy book in motel rooms.

 

* Christian children will easily find Christian clubs and events for them in their schools/communities.

 

* Christians can more easily find schools for their children than those of other religions.

 

* The word "Christian" is typically used connote only good things.

 

* Christians can assume public prayers will be Christian in nature.

 

I think it's perfectly fine for anyone to make any accommodation they want, but if I can't live up to the "gosh" standard (which, by both our reckonings is odd) am I persecuting someone? I'd like to see some grace in both directions.

 

T.

Edited September 20, 2010 by freethinkermama
I can't spell "privileged" :)

[freethinkermama]

I am finding it quite fascinating that you say that if your Sikh student had mentioned it at the time, you'd have been more careful to wear shoes--at least during the class when you knew he'd be present, and yet you would be offended if a Christian student mentioned that your language was a distraction and see no reason to make any adjustment, even just for the time she was in your class. The reason you give, if I understand you correctly, is that this person would be clearly a minority within the predominant majority culture, and therefore should not be accommodated.

I am wondering, would you feel differently if the person letting you know she was uncomfortable with your usage of the word God was Sikh, or a Sunni? If the person making the request were a member of a religious group that is NOT part of the religious majority here, would that be different to you than if the person is part of a small minority within that religious majority?

 

I am not trying to be snarky here, I'm truly curious. I'm interested in understanding how you choose to draw your lines. But if this is too personal, please do feel free to ignore my question.

 

No, no. If you thought I meant to keep my shoes on only because it was a MUSLIM student who told me to keep them on (Saudi Arabia--the only legal religion is Islam) I did not express myself clearly. I said I was more likely to make an issue of keeping them on because it was _already_ a part of my culture, and I already was aware of it. It was a little unprofessional on my part to have my shoes off.

 

As to the Christian student, I'd do my best by her to clean up my act, petty though I thought her worries might be. :) The reason I see a difference here is that for the one (the shoes) this is something already promoted by my culture (wear shoes in class). "Oh, my god" isn't. "Oh, my god" is considered a perfectly ok colloquialism by most of the culture, and therefore something I'd shrug at, though I'd try to be more polite. (Just like my response to "gosh" and "golly". Even though that's downright nutty to me.) (Also, as a former Christian, I'm already sensitized enough to OMG, that I don't use it anyway.)

 

The point of those examples was to respond to Lauri who was curious about whether we were more aware of more distinct cultural differences and whether we'd more likely bend the more different they were.

 

My point was, and is, that our culture in America is strongly Christian, and that most reasonable accommodations have already been made because of our history with Christianity.

 

T.

[freethinkermama]

I think this could possibly be because people are more aware of the conflicts, debates, and vagaries of the religion/culture they are most familiar with, and are more sensitive to the ones they don't know as well. And within that, a much higher percentage of people in this country are Christian so you see the effect you're talking about.

 

I'm Muslim, although I'm not a professor. If I were, and a Muslim student came to me and said I had to do X (X=dress a certain way, speak a certain way, etc.) I would know the background of some of these requests and having heard them before and decided for myself, I would probably ignore the request. Or I might try to accommodate it, but because I agreed and was grateful he had pointed it out. If a Christian, Jew, Buddhist, Hindu etc came to me and told me what I was doing was offensive, I would be more likely to accommodate them based on my lack of familiarity with their religion and frankly, because I would be embarrased.

 

So I'm not sure if it's the "dominant" group as much as it is the "other" and there happens to be a large difference in group size. In the almost 100% Muslim country of my origin, people would be mortified if they did something offensive to a visiting Christian, but would not be that bothered is a fellow Muslim was offended by something because they would understand the ins and outs of that offense and think some people were too sensitive, or that if they made the accommodation an equal number of people would be offended the other way. In other words, they would be familiar with the "offense".

 

IOW, if someone came up to me and said, "Wow, that's offensive to Buddhists" I would censor myself, as the alternatives are to continue to offend or to learn all the vagaries of Buddhism and decide for myself. If a Muslim came and said it was offensive I don't wear shoes I would probably roll my eyes. :tongue_smilie:

 

 

Ohh, that's a good point! Interesting. That's another aspect. Because I was unaware of how grievous or petty the shoes issue might be, I definitely would have been more careful about keeping my shoes on. Since I was very familiar with Christianity, and had a good idea about how "Oh, my gosh" and "Oh, my god" are used among a majority of the Christian population, I might have been a little less afraid of offending people. :) Either way, I'd have wanted to be nice. . .but I'd bring my own knowledge of the cultural issues into it. I think that's why so many people have taken up this thread. To many, even Christians, this is a non-issue, and it's really interesting to see other perspectives.

 

T.

[MamaSheep]

No, no. If you thought I meant to keep my shoes on only because it was a MUSLIM student who told me to keep them on (Saudi Arabia--the only legal religion is Islam) I did not express myself clearly. I said I was more likely to make an issue of keeping them on because it was _already_ a part of my culture, and I already was aware of it. It was a little unprofessional on my part to have my shoes off.

 

As to the Christian student, I'd do my best by her to clean up my act, petty though I thought her worries might be. :) The reason I see a difference here is that for the one (the shoes) this is something already promoted by my culture (wear shoes in class). "Oh, my god" isn't. "Oh, my god" is considered a perfectly ok colloquialism by most of the culture, and therefore something I'd shrug at, though I'd try to be more polite. (Just like my response to "gosh" and "golly". Even though that's downright nutty to me.) (Also, as a former Christian, I'm already sensitized enough to OMG, that I don't use it anyway.)

 

Gotcha. Thanks for clarifying. And I'm glad to hear that you'd at least try to be more polite, that's kind of you.

 

The point of those examples was to respond to Lauri who was curious about whether we were more aware of more distinct cultural differences and whether we'd more likely bend the more different they were.

 

My point was, and is, that our culture in America is strongly Christian, and that most reasonable accommodations have already been made because of our history with Christianity.

 

T.

 

I think I'm with Laurie on this one--there is a LOT in popular American culture that in no way accommodates for common Christian belief and practice. But I do see your point.

[Mrs Mungo]

IOW, if someone came up to me and said, "Wow, that's offensive to Buddhists" I would censor myself, as the alternatives are to continue to offend or to learn all the vagaries of Buddhism and decide for myself. If a Muslim came and said it was offensive I don't wear shoes I would probably roll my eyes. :tongue_smilie:

 

I agree with this. I think it is the fact that most posters *are* Christian, and even the ones who aren't are very familiar with Christianity. Most of us wouldn't know what might be offensive to a Hindu, outside of offering the class cheeseburgers.

 

I don't think it's appropriate for people to be telling the OP that she shouldn't think what she thinks religiously, or feel what she feels, or that she shouldn't have attended an educational setting not run by her religious group or should be correcting her views on blasphemy. I don't think the majority of responses would have been the same had the OP been expressing offense of religious sensibilities that weren't Christian. I think the same level of respect should extend to all groups. She is not "wrong" somehow for thinking/feeling/believing what she does. To me, it's helpful, in matters religious or political, to ask oneself if i would be reacting the same way if it was the same issue, but different "group."

 

I can only speak for myself, I didn't say what she should think or feel. I *did* say, maybe she should choose a different school. This is because I attended a state university. Let me give you some examples of things that might bother the OP.

 

I received a C in my women in antiquity class. So did anyone else who disagreed with the professor's stance on particular issues. The two guys in the class both received a D. I realize that I'm pretty far left compared to many on *this* board, but I am moderate/conservative enough to tick off that professor.

 

What is she going to do when it comes to the sciences? That could be a very real problem for her if she continues in a secular setting. Will she be able to write on a test that the earth is millions of years old or that natural selection is the reason for certain things we see in nature? Will she feel it is "participating" in a lie or falsehood if she is expected to answer a certain way on a test?

 

I knew two people who dropped my Bible as Literature class when they realized it would be treated as any other piece of literature, not as a holy book and that the professor was not a Christian. I had several other classes in which the Bible was referenced as a piece of comparative literature. Would that be a problem for the OP?

 

I had another class in which pictures from Playboy were shown as examples of how popular culture subjugates women. There was no warning given. Would something like that be a problem for the OP?

 

What if she will be required (as I was as a Literature student) to study Allen Ginsberg? I was actually required to attend a reading by Allen Ginsberg. He not only used completely horrifically foul language (and cursing doesn't usually bother me that much), but he touted NAMBLA and boy love in general. How about if she was required to read Lolita or Catcher in the Rye? Would she be able to do it? Or would she feel that she was participating in something against her religious sensibilities?

 

Those are only a few of the *many* examples of problems that might be tougher to overcome than a professor saying "oh my god" (small g, if the professor is not a Christian, I don't really know though).

 

I wasn't judging her, but if THIS issue is causing her such a quandary, I worry about what she faces in the future at a secular school. As I said before, it's not a judgment, it's just reality.

Edited September 20, 2010 by Mrs Mungo

[freethinkermama]

It's been nice to chat with you, MamaSheep.

 

:)

 

Gotcha. Thanks for clarifying. And I'm glad to hear that you'd at least try to be more polite, that's kind of you.

 

 

 

I think I'm with Laurie on this one--there is a LOT in popular American culture that in no way accommodates for common Christian belief and practice. But I do see your point.

[MamaSheep]

It's been nice to chat with you, MamaSheep.

 

:)

 

Likewise. :)

[freethinkermama]

In a sense they have been. Their leaders had to change certain tenets of their faith because of it. They believe in marriage, but their marriage is limited to one spouse, just as marriage is limited to those of opposite genders.

 

Mormons can still marry a spouse. Gays, for the most part can't.

I'm pretty sure Mormons don't want to give up their spouse. Most gays would just like one. In order for them both to be equal in the eyes of the law, one or the other would have to happen.

 

T.

 

Also, I think that according to the LDS "God" changed his mind about polygamy, or that Joseph Smith explained that polygamy was only needed for a short time (and this from their god). I believe whatever the case, Mormon theology says that the change in marriage standards was their God's doing, and not simply a tenant changed to have the state of Utah accepted into the Union. But, I admit I could be wrong. MamaSheep, would you clarify why the CoJCLDS no longer practices polygamy? Wasn't it once a requirement for exhaltation? But it is no longer? (Does this need to be an s/o?) ;)

Edited September 20, 2010 by freethinkermama
clarity

[mommaduck]

Mormons can still marry a spouse. Gays, for the most part can't.

I'm pretty sure Mormons don't want to give up their spouse. Most gays would just like one. In order for them both to be equal in the eyes of the law, one or the other would have to happen.

 

T.

Oy, you didn't get it.

[freethinkermama]

Oy, you didn't get it.

 

You're saying that by the laws of the land Mormons can only marry one person. By the laws of the land gays can marry no one.

 

You claimed that Mormons have had their religious rights infringed upon by limiting themselves to one spouse, despite their own teachings. My point was that, no, their teachings changed. Whether by "God" or by mere expediency, I'll leave that to the individual to decide.

 

Anyone can have a spouse, so long as they aren't of the same gender. Everyone is equal, just some people are more equal than others. "Oy."

[mommaduck]

You claimed that Mormons have had their religious rights infringed upon by limiting themselves to one spouse, despite their own teachings. My point was that, no, their teachings changed. Whether by "God" or by mere expediency, I'll leave that to the individual to decide.

 

That is shown by what order things occurred and was stated in the LDS mama's post. But I guess it's okay for men to be forbidden to financially support their wives and children as long as they are permitted to keep one wife? That means that they were treated "better" than gays and lesbians? (yes, I know not an issue with LDS nowadays, but is an issue with polygamous families that move to the US from elsewhere in the world and has been an issue in this and other countries when one belief is forced on another and it's enacted by laws).

[MamaSheep]

Mormons can still marry a spouse. Gays, for the most part can't.

I'm pretty sure Mormons don't want to give up their spouse. Most gays would just like one. In order for them both to be equal in the eyes of the law, one or the other would have to happen.

 

T.

 

Also, I think that according to the LDS "God" changed his mind about polygamy, or that Joseph Smith explained that polygamy was only needed for a short time (and this from their god). I believe whatever the case, Mormon theology says that the change in marriage standards was their God's doing, and not simply a tenant changed to have the state of Utah accepted into the Union. But, I admit I could be wrong. MamaSheep, would you clarify why the CoJCLDS no longer practices polygamy? Wasn't it once a requirement for exhaltation? But it is no longer? (Does this need to be an s/o?) ;)

 

I'm not sure how much I want to delve into this here, but I guess I'm somewhat game so long as the discussion remains civil. I'll just answer your question here, but if we want to go into it much more than that then, yes, it should probably be a spin-off. This poor thread has been stretched beyond the breaking point enough already, I think...lol.

 

What it boils down to is that the practice was stopped because God said so. But it was a complex situation that can still generate a lot of speculation even within the church as to what exactly God's reasoning was. The president of the church at the time, Wilford Woodruff, pointed out that God recognized the efforts the people had made to defend their religious liberty through civil disobedience and by appealing the constitutionality of the laws all the way up to the court of last resort. They'd done all that was really in their power to defend their rights. Yet, President Wilford said, he would have gladly let every member of the church go to prison and all the church's property be seized, as the law dictated, rather than back down, if the Lord had not intervened and instructed him to have the church comply with the law. One reason he gives is that the imprisonment and seizure of church property would interfere with more important work the church needed to be doing. Did God say so because He took pity on the plight of His people? Did God say so to further a political agenda? Did God say so because the purpose of having polygamy in this dispensation (whatever that might have been in the first place--and there are a number of speculations about that) had been fulfilled? Again, these are things that are speculated over, and about which any individual Mormon is fully welcome to form his or her own opinion. In general, though, it is considered enough that God said stop, so we stopped.

 

Polygamy was never a requirement for exaltation.

 

Marriage is a requirement for exaltation. In many ways, marriage (when entered into willingly, under divine authority, as a permanent condition, and lived out in love and unity) is viewed as a fundamental synergistic union between the divine feminine and the divine masculine to form an entity (the couple) with all the attributes of both, as well as additional attributes that can be achieved only in the joining of the two, and which neither a man nor a woman alone can possess. In our belief, only this kind of united entity with these additional attributes possesses the capacity to receive the fullest possible measure of life, or Eternal Life--the quality of life enjoyed by God, and which is the greatest of all the gifts of God. (And which is not synonymous in our beliefs with salvation or immortality--neither of which requires marriage. These are different things than eternal life. Related, but not at all the same thing.)

 

(In fact, one of the problems that many Mormons have with "gay marriage" laws, since we've been skirting around that issue, is that by legislatively redefining marriage, this kind of law would make our view of marriage technically illegal, which is an infringement of our first ammendment rights to free exercise. Most Mormons I know would probably not oppose legislation granting legal rights to civilly recognized gay couples that were similar to those granted by the state to civilly recognized married couples, so long as they could do so without legally redefining "marriage".)

 

Hope that helps answer your questions.

[ThatCyndiGirl]

Not accommodations--just cultural matters of course.

 

For example:

 

Christmas break for one. Christmas holiday off. Some state schools, including the university where we live, have Good Friday off. Weekends that include Sunday as a day off of classes and work. These are big ones, and ones, that because of the privileged status of Christianity, are a given. We simply assume these. It's easy for folks to not see them because they're a part of the culture. How about Blue Laws? We still have those in my part of the country. Yes, Christianity is privileged. Hugely so. Say "God" and Christians automatically assume their deity is being invoked. :) Convert to Christianity in jail, and you're more likely to be parolled. (Far more than if you become a non-believer :)) You're more likely to be voted into office as any branch of Christian. If you're atheist, you can darn-near forget about it.

 

If you like, you can Google "Christian privilege". You might not totally agree with everything you read. About.com has a great list, and even if you don't agree 100% perhaps it will help you understand how predominantly Christian our culture is. It's hard to feel wet when you live in the water.

 

*Christians can assume they will hear songs, see programs, etc. related to their major holidays all over the media.

 

* Christians can erect signs and billboards without expecting vandalism (Google "atheist signs defaced" to see dozens of signs in the last year that have been defaced.)

 

* Look around your town. How many Christian buildings do you see compared to those of other faiths?

 

* When someone says "thank god" or "god bless you" (Or, "Oh my god" :)) you can assume they're talking about the Christian one.

 

* Christians will find their holy book in motel rooms.

 

* Christian children will easily find Christian clubs and events for them in their schools/communities.

 

* Christians can more easily find schools for their children than those of other religions.

 

* The word "Christian" is typically used connote only good things.

 

* Christians can assume public prayers will be Christian in nature.

 

I think it's perfectly fine for anyone to make any accommodation they want, but if I can't live up to the "gosh" standard (which, by both our reckonings is odd) am I persecuting someone? I'd like to see some grace in both directions.

 

T.

 

 

:grouphug: Thank you for this. It seems like very few American Christians realize the privileges they enjoy in America.....all while bemoaning their "victim status". :glare: (I'm not speaking about anyone on this board, but about people I know IRL who like to play the "poor persecuted Christian" card.) :banghead:

[Laurie4b]

Not accommodations--just cultural matters of course.

 

For example:

 

Christmas break for one. Christmas holiday off. Some state schools, including the university where we live, have Good Friday off. Weekends that include Sunday as a day off of classes and work. These are big ones, and ones, that because of the privileged status of Christianity, are a given. We simply assume these. It's easy for folks to not see them because they're a part of the culture. How about Blue Laws? We still have those in my part of the country. Yes, Christianity is privileged. Hugely so. Say "God" and Christians automatically assume their deity is being invoked. :) Convert to Christianity in jail, and you're more likely to be parolled. (Far more than if you become a non-believer :)) You're more likely to be voted into office as any branch of Christian. If you're atheist, you can darn-near forget about it.

 

If you like, you can Google "Christian privilege". You might not totally agree with everything you read. About.com has a great list, and even if you don't agree 100% perhaps it will help you understand how predominantly Christian our culture is. It's hard to feel wet when you live in the water.

 

*Christians can assume they will hear songs, see programs, etc. related to their major holidays all over the media.

 

* Christians can erect signs and billboards without expecting vandalism (Google "atheist signs defaced" to see dozens of signs in the last year that have been defaced.)

 

* Look around your town. How many Christian buildings do you see compared to those of other faiths?

 

* When someone says "thank god" or "god bless you" (Or, "Oh my god" :)) you can assume they're talking about the Christian one.

 

* Christians will find their holy book in motel rooms.

 

* Christian children will easily find Christian clubs and events for them in their schools/communities.

 

* Christians can more easily find schools for their children than those of other religions.

 

* The word "Christian" is typically used connote only good things.

 

* Christians can assume public prayers will be Christian in nature.

 

I think it's perfectly fine for anyone to make any accommodation they want, but if I can't live up to the "gosh" standard (which, by both our reckonings is odd) am I persecuting someone? I'd like to see some grace in both directions.

 

T.

 

Ok. I was more thinking of accomodations to prevent egregious offense, not ways that the majority religious practice is more noticeable.

 

I agree the holidays are an accomodation to the largest religious group, though Christmas is so secularized that I think many people who don't self-identify as Christians would be upset if that was no longer a holiday. I personally dislike the long vacation in the middle of winter, but would take Christmas Day and Eve off for religious purposes.

 

In our local community college, students are now able to get an excused absence for a religious holiday of one's choice (and nothing else except for jury duty, including death of an intimate family member, being sick, etc. qualifies as an excused absence. )

 

I wasn't aware that blue laws are still in force anywhere. I agree that they were an accomodation when they were first written and enforced, but I looked it up and the ones remaining seem to be about sale of alchohol being delayed or disallowed on Sundays, which seems rather archaic as opposed to an accomodation to current Christians. I think it's funny that hunting is prohibited on Sundays in some places. That should probably fall under "accomodation to wives of hunters" rather than to Christians, though. ;)

 

Much on the list (Christian schools, churches, Bibles in hotels) is paid for and organized by Christians. Not sure what that part has to do with anyone else.