Today while getting off the train to head to school

[Drale]

I was carrying a book about the Tudors, and it is about the size and thickness of the Bible. This older lady said "I'm glad to see young people still reading the bible." I returned by saying "This is not a bible, in fact its probably the exact opposite, its a history book." She then told me "You shouldn't talk about the good book like that, its Gods word" and I started to chuckle, then she made a hmmff sound and walked away. I found the whole thing funny and I hope she's pissed off and has a terrible rest of the day. Am I a bad person? I certainly don't think so but lately I really have been enjoying pissing off right wing maniacs and religious zealots.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

1. I would not wish a bad day on her...

But otherwise, I agree with you.

The Tudors do make for fascinating reading!

[randome]

3. The same.

We will never be free of religious 'idiots' so we may as well be nice to them.

Except when, you know, they're trying to control us and are taking their frustrations out on the less fortunate. But that's usually in the political realm, not on a train.

[NightWatcher]

2. To quote Patton Oswalt "I'm glad you like a book."

It's how I feel about fans of the Lord of the Rings and most religious people. Please don't tell me about the details of either one if them. Religious people have come to strike me as lacking creativity and critical thinking skills. (Sorry if you're religious, it's how I feel).

To answer your question, no you are not a bad person. Wait, do you have the bodies of dead hookers stashed under your mattress?

[Drale]

5. Mattress? ummm no that would make it lumpy

I keep them in my woodshed....I MEAN YOU DIDN'T JUST HEAR THAT LALALALALALA!!!!

[ieoeja]

18. Then I won’t tell you about LOTR. But since you failed to mention The Silmarillion….

In the beginning there was Eru, called Illuvatar in Middle Earth. So he surrounds himself with a bunch of Angels…

Okay, Tolkien called them Maiar. J.R.R. was first and foremost a linguist who only wrote all this crap so he could play around with languages. What do you expect from the Chair of English at Oxford. I mean, this was the man who got to define what was and was not proper English. But I’m going to stick to the common analogies so I don’t have to go around giving all the definitions.

And did you notice that you get Bible and LOTR in one book? Tow-for-one proselytizing!

So Illuvatar surrounds itself with a bunch of Angels and starts a jam session. Melkor, the most powerful angel keeps breaking out into Satanic Rock. Illuvatar changes things up a couple of times with the last theme blending Melkor’s music into theirs making for one really bad ass tune. The making of this music was a form of architectural design for Middle Earth.

Earth pops into being and the big guy (or gal) sends a bunch of his (or her) angels down to Earth to do the finishing work. Melkor, of course, tries to gum up the works. Which is why Manwe is put in charge of the job despite being slightly lesser than Melkor.

Fast forward a couple billion years and the Elves are put into the world by Illuvatar. The Angels go to war with Melkor and imprison him for a set duration. There was no sun or moon at this time which is why Elves dig the stars so much. Though apparently not enough to stop them from taking off for the shiny city of the Angels (be thankful he wasn’t Spanish or he would have sent the Elves off to Los Angeles).

The Elves take off in three groups. The Vanyar (can you say Vanguard) under Ingwe. I forget the 2nd groups name, but the 3rd were called something that puts you in the mind of Tarry. Sometimes even J.R.R. got sloppy.

The third group was the largest and ended up breaking up because their King and an Angel met in the woods, got down to doing the nasty and forgot all about his mission. Who needs Heaven when you’re fucking an Angel?

Off in the Undying Lands (where the Angels live) everything is lit up by two trees. One produces a bright golden light, the other a soft silver light (you can probably guess where this is going). Melkor is given parole and turns into Gossip Girl. The 2nd group was led by a guy named Finwe who had a bunch of kids being Catholic or something. Melkor managed to turn one of them, Feanor, into a Teabagger who was paranoid about everything. Feanor even invented weaponry for the first time forming the first NRA chapter.

But Feanor was a good craftsman who caught the light of the two trees in gems called the Silmarils. So when Melkor destroys the trees and steals the gems, a bunch of shit happens.

[KamaAina]

19. You forgot the Akallabeth

in which the land of Numenor is undone by hubristic king Ar-Pharazon, who dared to invade the aforementioned Undying Lands to seize eternal life. The aforementioned Angels promptly caused Numenor to slide into the Sea; it became Atalante the Downfallen.

Any resemblance to older myths about continent-sized pieced of land (e.g. Atlantis) sliding into the sea is purely coincidental.

[theKed]

73. Though, of course,

such similarities were wholly intentional. Tolkien's intent was to craft a mythology of Earth's history before recorded history, tying into various legends and tales of many cultures.

[ieoeja]

120. But that skips over the whole rest of the 1st age and into the 2nd.

On the assumption that “a bunch of shit happens” is a poor summary of the 1st age, I will continue educating NightWatcher who, I assume, badly wants to know all this. That or I’m just feeling super dorky right now.

Melkor kills Finwe (Feanor’s pop) while stealing the Silmarils. He and and his bros swear vengeance. Feanor’s followers steal a bunch of ships killing some of their fellow Elves in the bargain. His brothers Fingolfin and Fingon are pretty ticked about this, but still want their revenge on Melkor whom Feanor renames Morgoth because Feanor is the kind of shithead who thinks calling his enemies nicknames is the height of witty.

Olorion, the Angel who serves as Herald of Manwe, and who appears in LOTR under the name “Gandalf”, shows up to tell them what shitheads they all are. Yes, Gandalf is an Angel. Presumably so were the other Wizards.

Feanor’s folk sail back to Middle Earth promising to send the ships back for the others. He then has the ships burned rather than sending them back.

Did I mention that Feanor is a shithead?

Feanor charges right up to Morgoth’s stronghold and is promptly killed.

I believe I forgot to mention Feanor isn’t too bright either.

Fingolfin and Fingon eventually make it to Middle Earth by crossing the Arctic. These returned Elves, called Noldor, setup a bunch of kingdoms which doesn’t bode so well with Thingwe. He would be the Elf king I mentioned earlier bumping knees with an Angel. Her name is Melian, by the way. And Thingwe changes his name to Thingol. I guess if you live for eons you would get tired of the same name.

The Noldor appear to have been a bit misogynistic as all the sons of Feanor, Fingolfin and Fingon got kingdoms while Galladriel got nada. Though, of course, she would eventually get that kingdom in the LOTR as one of the few Noldor remaining in Middle Earth by the 3rd age. Apparently the light of the trees embedded great powers in the Noldor. Or just good propaganda.

Lots of people and monsters get killed.

Dwarves, by the way, are an accident. One of the Angels got tired of waiting for Elves and Humans. Illuvatar made his one and only appearance in Middle Earth to chastise the Angel who got all sulky and said, “fine, you take them. Better yet, I’ll just smash them into tiny bits.” Illuvatar patted the Angel on the head, thanked him for the gift, then stuck them up on a mountain with fridge magnets. Eventually, the magnets let go, and the Dwarves show up. First time Morgoth set the Dragon onto the Elves, the Dwarves kicked his ass.

Later they got into a fight with Thingol over a late payment which was the apparent cause of all the distrust between Dwarves and Elves ever since.

Lastly, Humans make an appearance. Most of ‘em never make it over the Blue Mountains to where all this action takes place. One of them named Beren - you may recall a LOTR reference to the Lay of Bern and Luthien – wonders into Thingols kingdom and meets Luthien, daughter of Thingol and Melian. They fall in love (ew). Thingol doesn’t want his daughter with some ugly human, so he tells Beren he can only marry Luthien if he returns with a Silmaril in his hand. Beren starts north and gets captured by Sauron. Sauron is an Angel and follower of Morgoth. You may have noticed that Sauron ain’t shit compared to Morgoth.

Luthien shows up and puts Sauron to sleep with her singing. Obviously not a winner of Middle Earth Idol. She and Beren sneak into Morgoth’s pad, steals one of the Silmarils out of his crown, but wakes him before they can steal the others. Just before the reach Thingol some dog bites off Beren’s hand in which he is carrying the gem. Thingol’s folk shoot the dog and find the Silmaril in Beren’s undigested hand.

Boy gets Girl.

The two have a kid. The kid tries getting the Angels to help in their fight. His wife changes into a bird and flies out to him bearing the Silmaril with her. Of maybe the birdwife was their kid. I don’t recall and don’t really care. The important things are (1) they get that help which kicks Morgoth’s ass for once and for all, and (2) they had a couple of kids called Elrond and Elros “the Half-Elven”.

If you’ve been paying attention, Elrond is more than half Elf. He has a fucking Angel as his great-grandmother. Which may explain why Elrond is from the Dark Elves (those who never saw the light of the trees), but still the alpha Elf in Middle Earth.

Here ends the 1st age.

The 2nd age has already been mentioned. About the only thing I would add is that Aragorn is a Great-to-the-nth-degree grandson of Elros. He and Elrond were allowed to choose whether to be Human or Elf.


And the single most interesting thing about the Silmarillion is that it was never written as a book intended to be published. It is just an outline. A three hundred page outline because J.R.R., as the Chair of English at Oxford, actually did write in the tedious fashion they teach you in school, but which I’m fairly confident no real author does. Which is why it never achieved LOTR popularity.

[muriel_volestrangler]

139. I'm just going to point out Gandalf is not the same as the Herald of Manwe

Both 'angels', but the Herald (whose name I can't remember) is a kickass 'you guys are going to listen to me and do what you're told' angel, who comes back at the head of the army at the request of Sailor and BirdGirl to sort out Morgoth in Middle-Earth at the end of the First Age, while Gandalf is a modest "I'm not sure I'm really up to this" angel sent in the Third Age to get Middle-Earth to work out how to solve its own problems with a bit of cheer-leading and well-placed nudges.

[MurrayDelph]

122. Thanks for posting this

I tried reading The Silmariliion when it first came out. Despite loving the LotR, I just could not get into it.

I recently came across an audiobook copy of The Silmarillion and contemplated listening on my next drive between Portland and LA. Considering how much trouble I had staying awake reading this thresd, I think I'd better find something else.

[HERVEPA]

4. Agree. Pissing off bible-thumpers is a good thing.

[daleanime]

6. I feel kind of bad for her....

here you are waving all this fastening stuff under her nose an she's just not uninterested.

[Summer Hathaway]

44. Fastening stuff?

And she's "just not uninterested"?

Huh?

[MADem]

58. Norm Crosby....is that you?

(You've gotta be a certain age to get that one...)

[olddots]

84. Norm reading the bible

that would have been funny and made the most sense of it.

[Robb]

7. Dale Carnegie would be proud.

[kentauros]

13. !!

[Lars39]

8. Now,see, a person interested in life and those around them would want to know the name of the book,

or at least what it is about. Or maybe that's just the reader in me.

[A HERETIC I AM]

9. "Am I a bad person?"

Quite the contrary. Today you're my fucking hero!

[Summer Hathaway]

21. What a lovely sentiment.

Attaching 'heroism' to someone who enjoys pissing someone off because of their religious beliefs, and then hoping they have a bad day.

That's just the kind of narrow-minded bigotry this site used to rail about when they read that kind of BS on Freeper sites.

Welcome to the new DU - same as the old FreeRepublic.

[A HERETIC I AM]

24. BWAHHAHAHAHA HAHA! (Edited)

Too funny!

So, let me get this straight....you are assuming the OP "enjoys pissing someone off because of their religious beliefs" yet are COMPLETELY willing to give a pass to the nosy stranger who just can't understand why someone would be reading a thick book that WASN'T the bible?

The narrow mindedness enters in when complete strangers elect to condemn others for their decisions to read something other than an outdated and archaic religious text that has no relevance for anyone living in this century that actually takes time to THINK.

Sorry, but soon, though not soon enough, the bible and all it represents will be tossed onto the trash heap of history along with the stories of the gods of the Greeks and Romans, because it is EQUALLY as mythical.

Edit; and all this from someone who speaks of a historical DU when they have been around for a mere 18 months. Amazing

[Summer Hathaway]

35. Where in the OP

is it suggested that the 'nosy stranger' can't understand why someone would be reading a thick book that WASN'T the bible?

Are you seriously suggesting that someone who mistakes one book for another does so because they think ALL books of a certain size, thickness and appearance can only BE a Bible? Perhaps you came to that conclusion because that's how YOU think - most people don't.

Where did the old lady in question "condemn" anyone for their decision to read something that isn't the Bible?

Whether the Bible will be tossed into the trash heap of history is of no consequence to me, one way or the other. If and when that happens, I'll probably be long gone from this earth - and probably, so will you. Always easy to make predictions about things that will never be proven nor disproven in your lifetime.

And speaking of reading - you DO know that people who are not registered here can read DU as easily as the next person? You DO know that there were thousands of people (not so many now, I'm sure) who have read DU 'religiously' (no pun intended) for years, but have never registered or posted here? Yeah, amazing.

I have been participating on this site for just over a year - a small span of time as compared to many. But in that short span (especially over the past few months) I have watched the site devolve into the same kind of black-and-white, narrow-minded, bigoted thinking that was once decried (and still is in some quarters here) as the kind of mindset that Freepers cling to in their ignorance and inability to see anyone else's POV other than their own.

[A HERETIC I AM]

38. Where in the OP?

Ummm. The whole thing.

Yes, yes of course. DU has devolved. Every other week.

Don't know how long you were reading before you decided to sign up in order to set us straight, but I'll tell you this; I've been reading AND posting here for over 9 years and I can tell you this with no reservation - it ebbs and flows. In other words, it is Democratic Underground, just as it always was.

Complaining about the tone just makes the tone worse.

[Summer Hathaway]

43. "Ummm. The whole thing."

That's the short answer for "it doesn't, so don't ask me for specifics because I don't have any."

I didn't sign up here to set anyone straight. I signed up because I thought this was a place where Democrats discussed the issues of the day in an intelligent manner; a place where an old lady on a train commenting (mistakenly so) that someone was reading a Bible was not presented as someone to be ridiculed, or dismissed as a "Bible-thumping RW maniac".

I'd been reading DU for a very long time before registering - and no, DU is NOT as it always was. Not by a long-shot.

Whether complaining about the tone makes the tone worse is of no interest to me. I have no vested interest in this place - and really couldn't care less what happens to it in future.

Posting here has become an amusement, rather than a place to engage in meaningful discussion - unless, of course, one considers ridiculing an old lady on a train who holds certain religious beliefs, or a debate on the wisdom of owning a pit bull, or a scream-fest about how all men are misogynists/potential rapists is one's idea of "meaningful discussion".

Fortunately, there are other Democratic websites where discussion about the Party and its direction are actually taken seriously - and rants about whether Beyonce's performance and/or choice of dress are dismissed as irrelevant to the direction of the nation as a whole.

But by all means, DO carry on. In view of the challenges the nation is now facing, and the importance of Democratic voices being heard, surely there is NOTHING more vital to our well-being as Democrats, and as a country, than demeaning old ladies who strike up a conversation about the Bible while traveling on a train.

[A HERETIC I AM]

53. OK, lets recap, shall we?

First the OP;

I was carrying a book about the Tudors, and it is about the size and thickness of the Bible. This older lady said "I'm glad to see young people still reading the bible." I returned by saying "This is not a bible, in fact its probably the exact opposite, its a history book." She then told me "You shouldn't talk about the good book like that, its Gods word" and I started to chuckle, then she made a hmmff sound and walked away. I found the whole thing funny and I hope she's pissed off and has a terrible rest of the day. Am I a bad person? I certainly don't think so but lately I really have been enjoying pissing off right wing maniacs and religious zealots.

Please note that Drale said "and walked away" as in "I didn't say another word, nor did I tell that person to fuck off, or have a horrible day or anything of the sort."

I said I didn't think the OP was a bad person and in fact I thought Drale was "My fucking hero". Still do, as it was heroic not to tell that lil' ol' lady to take her tut-tutting and kindly place it in a darkened orifice.


In response to that post of mine, you said;

What a lovely sentiment. Attaching 'heroism' to someone who enjoys pissing someone off because of their religious beliefs, and then hoping they have a bad day.

Lovely? No, certainly not. But it's funny and I liked Drale's response. Too bad if you didn't.

That's just the kind of narrow-minded bigotry this site used to rail about when they read that kind of BS on Freeper sites.

Ahhhh yes, of course! The old "Bigotry" card. Well played, I must say. Yup, you got it. Everyone who doesn't bend over backward for every backward sentiment expressed by a complete stranger is a bigot. Guess what? There are people of all stripes on DU, from true bleeding heart liberals to the mediocre and everything in between. The fact that Drale thought to him/herself that he/she hoped that person had a "terrible rest of her day" is NOT THE SAME THING AS TELLING HER TO HER FACE, now is it?

The Oxford English Dictionary says the origins of the word "Bigot" are from the "late 16th century (denoting a superstitious religious hypocrite): from French, of unknown origin"

The Cambridge English dictionary defines the word thus;

"a person who has strong, unreasonable beliefs and who thinks that anyone who does not have the same beliefs is wrong"

Seems the lil' ol' lady fits that bill, doesn't it?

Now, on to your post above.

That's the short answer for "it doesn't, so don't ask me for specifics because I don't have any."

It is easy to read between the lines here. I have been in similar situations and I can see the entire exchange in my mind. You asked "Where in the OP is it suggested that the 'nosy stranger' can't understand why someone would be reading a thick book that WASN'T the bible?'

Simple. The OP indicated the person, with no prompting or previous exchange, said "I'm glad to see young people still reading the bible." That is an assumption on her part. She made it because of the size and appearance of the book. It apparently didn't dawn on her that there might be an alternative or she would have ASKED what the book was, if she was truly interested. But no, she just assumed it HAD to be a bible and when she was given what I think was an appropriate and rather witty response, she got all indignant. "she made a hmmff sound and walked away."

I didn't sign up here to set anyone straight. I signed up because I thought this was a place where Democrats discussed the issues of the day in an intelligent manner; a place where an old lady on a train commenting (mistakenly so) that someone was reading a Bible was not presented as someone to be ridiculed, or dismissed as a "Bible-thumping RW maniac".

So....in all of the 15 months since you have signed up, have you not participated in ONE SINGLE discussion that you felt was done in an intelligent manner? Or do you only pay attention to the rather small percentage of threads by people that say things about religious people that you don't like?

If it had happened to me, I would have done one of two things, depending on my mood. I either would have smiled politely and not said a word but thought to myself "nutcase" or I would have told her, in a tone of voice as to leave her NO DOUBT what my feelings were, that there IS NO GOD.

I'd been reading DU for a very long time before registering - and no, DU is NOT as it always was. Not by a long-shot.

Yes it is. It ebbs and flows and we have lost a LOT of witty, intelligent members over the years, but there is still a core group that makes this site one of the most fun to read and participate in on the internet, as far as I am concerned.

Whether complaining about the tone makes the tone worse is of no interest to me. I have no vested interest in this place - and really couldn't care less what happens to it in future.

Posting here has become an amusement, rather than a place to engage in meaningful discussion - unless, of course, one considers ridiculing an old lady on a train who holds certain religious beliefs, or a debate on the wisdom of owning a pit bull, or a scream-fest about how all men are misogynists/potential rapists is one's idea of "meaningful discussion".

Fortunately, there are other Democratic websites where discussion about the Party and its direction are actually taken seriously - and rants about whether Beyonce's performance and/or choice of dress are dismissed as irrelevant to the direction of the nation as a whole.

Then perhaps you should consider moving along. No hard feelings, really. Sorry to say, but no one will miss you, or damned few will, anyway. Just as damned few will miss me if I decide to do the permanent log-out. For what its worth, OF COURSE it is an amusement, why else do you spend ANY time on the internet? Because it makes your hair dry faster?

But by all means, DO carry on. In view of the challenges the nation is now facing, and the importance of Democratic voices being heard, surely there is NOTHING more vital to our well-being as Democrats, and as a country, than demeaning old ladies who strike up a conversation about the Bible while traveling on a train.

On the other hand, you should stick around, because you are obviously wound so tight as to think that a message board with well over 10,000 regular, active posters should only talk about things that are "vital to our well-being as Democrats" and that fact has quite frankly, the potential for pure comedy gold.

Yeah. Sure.

[Summer Hathaway]

64. ...

"Please note that Drale said "and walked away" as in "I didn't say another word, nor did I tell that person to fuck off, or have a horrible day or anything of the sort."

Yes, Drale said that the person she encountered walked away, not that Drale walked away. So he/she didn't SAY to the old lady's face that they hoped she had a bad day, but instead posted about it on a "progressive" website looking for validation. How commendable.

"I said I didn't think the OP was a bad person and in fact I thought Drale was "My fucking hero". Still do, as it was heroic not to tell that lil' ol' lady to take her tut-tutting and kindly place it in a darkened orifice."

Well, if you think not telling an old lady to go fuck herself is 'heroic", what can I say - other than your idea of heroism is as immature as it is inane.

"The OP indicated the person, with no prompting or previous exchange, said "I'm glad to see young people still reading the bible." That is an assumption on her part. She made it because of the size and appearance of the book. It apparently didn't dawn on her that there might be an alternative or she would have ASKED what the book was, if she was truly interested. But no, she just assumed it HAD to be a bible and when she was given what I think was an appropriate and rather witty response, she got all indignant. "she made a hmmff sound and walked away.""

How truly ignorant of someone to assume that someone reading a thick, black-bound book was a Bible - almost as ignorant as someone assuming that "it didn't dawn on her that there might be an alternative".

" "I'm glad to see young people still reading the bible." Wow! Talk about flame-bait on the train! If the OP had been reading "Grey's Anatomy" while studying for an exam, and someone mistook it for "War and Peace" would that mistake be equally open to ridicule?

"Then perhaps you should consider moving along. No hard feelings, really. Sorry to say, but no one will miss you, or damned few will, anyway."

I never intimated that anyone would miss me if I were gone. Quite the contrary - I'm sure no one would notice. Nor do I care.

"On the other hand, you should stick around, because you are obviously wound so tight as to think that a message board with well over 10,000 regular, active posters should only talk about things that are "vital to our well-being as Democrats" and that fact has quite frankly, the potential for pure comedy gold."

If you honestly believe that there are 'well over 10,000 regular active posters here' you are truly naive. The fact that a site called DemocraticUnderground now concerns itself with whether pit bulls are appropriate pets, as opposed to discussing Democratic politics, speaks for itself. Topics that used to be categorized as "Lounge material" are now front-and-center as important subjects that all Democrats should be concerned with.

As for being 'wound too tight', that would, IMHO, apply to those who think Beyonce's costumes warrant endless discussion as though such a thing really matters - as though the impact of a diva-de-jour's choice of clothing is too all-important to be dismissed without commenting on its detrimental effect on the world as we know it - that along with who said what at the Oscars, and why SNL should have been immediately turned off by those who think their satirical view of Chavez in an opening sequence will change the universe.

"we have lost a LOT of witty, intelligent members over the years, but there is still a core group that makes this site one of the most fun to read and participate in on the internet, as far as I am concerned."

As far as you're concerned, that might be the perception - and you're welcome to it. As far as I'm concerned, the fact that this site has "lost a LOT of witty, intelligent members" speaks for itself.

[Union Scribe]

65. +1

And I'd miss you. I think many would

[Summer Hathaway]

71. Thank you.

But I doubt anyone would notice my departure.

There was a time (on a website long ago, and far away) when debate on any issue was engaged in with passion and supporting facts, rather than name-calling and "my way or the highway" rhetoric.

There was a time (I'm sure, because I read it right here) when Democrats supported the idea that equal rights for ALL included equal rights for those of religious beliefs that might not be shared, but were worthy of recognition and protection from ridicule nonetheless.

There was a time when the voice of reason was lauded as - well, as simply being reasonable.

Sadly, those days are gone - here on DU, anyway. What a sad state of affairs.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

80. "...there were thousands of people who have read DU for years, but...

...have never registered or posted here..."

I first became aware of DU way back in 2005 and came to read here 4-5 times a week in the evenings after work, shower, and supper. I might've had 30mins to an hour to read the day's events. I didn't register until I did because I never had time to do more than read and I wasn't up to speed on most of the issues discussed here due to formerly working 10hr days (plus 2 to 3 hours of commuting). I didn't feel I could speak with enough knowledge on many issues either. But now, due to arthritis and the good fortune of finding an at-home computer job, I am semi-retired and am at home all day. So, now I have time to read and to post.

I'm sure there have been many others like me and many more who haven't signed up.

[amuse bouche]

30. Religion is just another

word for hate, bigotry and complicity of pedophiles

And all in the name of fiction. It's so gross

[FarPoint]

52. Don't leave out controlling the masses

through shame, blame and fear.

Religion is fictious....

[amuse bouche]

79. Yup

A horrific sham

[KittyWampus]

55. So you lump Martin Luther King and the Dali Lama in that group > bigot.

[Union Scribe]

63. I bet they do, honestly.

The hostility is so intense and consuming that they can only show it online.

[Arugula Latte]

132. And the woman telling the OP what he should and shouldn't speak about?

Are you up in arms about her hostility?

[amuse bouche]

81. The religies are the bigots

but do tell yourself whatever makes you comfy

[Summer Hathaway]

69. Yes, of course

ALL religions are based on hate.

ALL religions are based on bigotry.

ALL religions are complicit in pedophilia.

In the same way that ALL Italians are members of organized crime, ALL Jews are cheap, ALL Irishmen are drunks, ALL Asians are sneaky, ALL Muslims are terrorists, ALL blacks are lazy - shall I go on? - ALL welfare recipients are freeloaders, ALL food-stamp program participants are leeches, ALL people collecting unemployment benefits are parasites ...

Thanks for you totally unbiased view of things. It leads me to believe that the RW aren't as dead-in-the-water as one might have hoped - given that self-proclaimed (or should that be self-absorbed?) progressive Democrats are more than willing to adopt their ALL-inclusive take on the world.

[Union Scribe]

61. Sadly it's not the "new DU"

It's always been this way.

[Arugula Latte]

131. Oh, get off your high horse.

The woman was the one being rude and telling the OP what he should and shouldn't say.

Religious people routinely go around imposing themselves on others (ringing doorbells, etc.) but when somebody has the nerve to produce a different viewpoint people go ballistic and tell atheists to shut up.

[LittleBlue]

154. This post was alerted on

At Wed Mar 13, 2013, 02:46 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

What a lovely sentiment.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2496118

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

Hmmm. Calling DU, and all DU\'ers that may disagree with this posters idea of bigotry (it\'s completely wrong, BTW) Free Republic. WTF? Hide that BS.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Wed Mar 13, 2013, 02:59 PM, and the Jury voted 2-4 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT and said: Faux poutrage.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: I can't see hiding a post defending religious freedom and against the loss of rights.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: I was reading the poster's other posts. I can see where they are coming from in regards to people going for black and white in the site. Still more nuance than other places, but I do understand the sentiment. Yes, the guy was also over the top in saying that there is no difference between Free Republic and this site, but it is them being dramatic. I'd let this go, but if the person's posts continue to escalate, then I can see hiding something else.
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: DU is devolving into grade school tattling IMO. Engage in discussion, stop trying to moderate it.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

I am juror 6.

[Summer Hathaway]

160. Thanks for the info!

[amuse bouche]

29. I'm right there with you--Hero indeed

Completely fed up with the God Frauds

[LibertyLover]

10. What's the book's title?

I need a good book on Tudor history. And personally, I would have done the same as you, only more so. Something along the lines of "The Bible? Not fucking likely lady. Do I look stupid enough to believe that Bronze Age mythology crap?"

[Patiod]

115. I'm guessing Wolf Hall or Bring Up the Bodies

Although both are fiction, the author, Hilary Mantel, made very little up, basing almost everything, even conversations, on letters and contemporary reports.

And I was carrying Wolf Hall around last week, and it's about the size of a bible....

[LibertyLover]

128. Thanks very much

do you know if either touches on the use of magic or belief in magic in the Tudor period? I have to teach a class on that topic in a few weeks and while I actually have a fair amount of material, something that might put it into context socially would also be helpful.

[RedCappedBandit]

11. Well what kind of a person sees a book and automatically assumes it's the bible?

It's like they don't realize other books were written.

[Drale]

12. To be fair

the copy I have is hard covered with a black cover so it could be mistaken as a Bible I guess.

[Summer Hathaway]

87. What kind of person

automatically assumes that someone who reads the Bible doesn't realize that there are other books that have been written?

Please proceed, ReCappedBandit ...

[RedCappedBandit]

88. Dunno, haven't met one. nt

[Summer Hathaway]

89. Please read Reply #11 ...

... and you will have met one.

[RedCappedBandit]

90. Oh?

Please show me where I made any assumptions about "people who read the bible" and not, specifically, the woman outlined in the OP who, clearly, did assume that just because it was a big fancy looking book, it was the bible. And then felt it necessary to purport that said book, written by a number of men, was the 'word of God'.

[Summer Hathaway]

95. You made that assumption in your post #11

Where in the OP does it state that the woman in question assumed it was a Bible because it was a "big, fancy-looking book"?

Felt is necessary to purport? Or maybe just wanted to express her views on the topic? In a free society, expressing one's views is permitted - or did you not know that?

"Written by a number of MEN" - is THAT was sticks in your craw? Had it been written by a 'number of women' would your views be different?

Who wrote the Bible is of no relevance - what IS of relevance is that some people believe it IS the word of God.

I don't - and you don't. Does that mean no one is permitted to see things differently than you and I do?

[RedCappedBandit]

97. Where in the OP does it state that?

I'm pretty sure that's what the confrontation was about. The lady assumed the book was a bible, and it was silly of her to do so. My post #11 had nothing to do with people "who read the bible", but specifically this lady. Which is more than evident to anyone who actually read the post.

Oh, and by the way, pointing out that the book was written by a number of men was a counter-argument to her 'word of God' lecture. But you knew that. Furthermore, nowhere in my post did I imply that I feel nobody is PERMITTED to see things differently. But you knew that too.


PS. Felt it necessary to purport is essentially synonymous with "maybe just wanted to express her views".

[Summer Hathaway]

103. "The lady assumed the book was a bible, and it was silly of her to do so."

Mistaken? Yes. "Silly" - no.

Her "word-of-God" LECTURE? Saying that one believes the Bible is the word of God - full stop, nothing more - is a LECTURE?

And no, "felt it necessary to purport" is NOT the same as expressing one's views. I might express my view that coriander, to me, is vile tasting - that is not the same as feeling a "necessity" to express my view on the topic.

[RedCappedBandit]

104. If you don't find it necessary to speak, why would you speak?

Sheesh. Have fun arguing trivialities. I found her assumption a bit silly. I found her need to defend the bible as the word of God silly. I don't care how that makes you feel. I hope you have a nice evening.

[Summer Hathaway]

106. Your reading comprehension is lacking

and requires some work.

But that's true of a lot of DU posters these days - so you're not alone.

Have.

A.

Nice.

Evening.

Too.

I hope I broke it down simply enough for you to understand.

[treestar]

113. That was my thought, too

Maybe it was due to its thickness. Even so, only the ignorant would fail to realize there are other thick books.

[Tikki]

14. Camping on a hill and the camp site above us could look down upon and I was reading ANGER...a book..

about Kenneth Anger, an early (1940's~) Hollywood erotica/porn film maker.
The only thing on the cover of the book were the big red letters ANGER ..
and I read it nonstop every day.

When the older couple above us had packed up and were just
about to leave their site the woman hollered down to me.."I hope that book helps you."
I told her, in it's own unique way, it has...

I wonder if she ever found out what the book was really about.


Tikki

[Summer Hathaway]

15. So an older lady

believes that the Bible is God's word, and stated so.

And, as a result, you enjoyed pissing her off, and hope she has a bad day.

Do you really think that everyone who believes the Bible is 'real' is a right-wing maniac and/or a religious zealot?

I don't believe in the Bible one iota. Does that make me a better person than someone who does? Does that mean I should actually enjoy pissing them off, and then hope they have a bad day? Should I also conclude that they are a RW maniac and/or religious zealot?

"Am I a bad person?" Well, what kind of person enjoys making fun of people who believe differently than they do, and wishes them ill as a result of that difference?

Asked and answered, as far as I can see.

[snooper2]

22. make you a better person? beats me, but it makes you a little smarter

[Summer Hathaway]

27. I've known a lot of people

who don't believe in the Bible, or any other religious teachings or tomes. And some of them are as dumb as shit.

What I believe makes me a little smarter than some is not my religious beliefs or lack thereof, but my ability to recognize that stereotyping those who DO have religious beliefs as Bible-thumping RW maniacs is no different than stereotyping all Italians as Mafia members, or all Irish as drunks.

On a site full of people who claim to see sexism, racism, and bullying under every rock and loudly decry it, it has somehow become acceptable to "piss-off" and wish ill on those whose beliefs differ from their own - and even an old lady is considered fair game.

The hypocrisy is astounding - not to mention the narrow-minded bigotry usually demonstrated by posters on Freeper sites.

"Someone asked me if the book I was reading was the Qu'uran, and I said, 'No, I don't believe in that crap.' I thought it was funny that I'd pissed them off, and hope they have a lousy day."

Does THAT work for you, too?

[A HERETIC I AM]

33. Works for me, anyway. n/t

[Summer Hathaway]

37. Well, kudos for owning up to your own bigotry.

I'm sure the Muslims, Buddhists, Christians, Jews, etc. who post here will be happy to know where you stand on the topic of religious freedom, and their rights to express their religious beliefs without hindrance or being subject to ridicule.

Your candor is appreciated. Your bigotry is not.

[A HERETIC I AM]

54. Oh, for crying out fucking loud.

I'm sure the Muslims, Buddhists, Christians, Jews, etc. who post here will be happy to know where you stand on the topic of religious freedom, and their rights to express their religious beliefs without hindrance or being subject to ridicule.

Let me make something absolutely crystal clear to you;

NO SUCH RIGHT EXISTS!

Just because someone holds to a deep conviction, religious or otherwise, it does NOT mean they have a "right" to be free of ridicule.

You have made it clear in other posts that you do not give much credence to the bible. Goodonya. But to suggest that I or the OP or anyone else OWES some sort of special reverence for people that cling to the idea that the god of Abraham and Isaac is a real thing is the dogs bollocks.

For the record, Buddhists and certainly most mainstream Jews aren't the types to do things like what happened to the OP. That is the realm of the religious fanatic. And I have yet to come across a Muslim on DU that would do such a thing, either.

Some Christians are another matter entirely.

One more thing and I'm done with this silliness (it's been fun, hasn't it?)

A couple weeks ago I had the distinct pleasure of meeting a fellow DU'er and her husband and we shared a meal. That person's user name spells out SPECIFICALLY where she stands regarding religion. She is a Christian. That evening we discussed Christianity for a grand total of about 4 minutes and moved on. She is one of the kindest, sweetest persons I have ever met and truly a tender soul.

I'll be sure to let her know I am a "bigot".

[Union Scribe]

62. I suppose no one has the right to be treated civilly.

But seriously, is being a dick to strangers what really makes a "hero" to you? That's actually the saddest thing I've read all day.

[A HERETIC I AM]

66. How was the OP a "dick"?

Honestly?

If the account is true, then the only thing he or she is guilty of is perhaps a slight lack of tact.

Saying "This is not a bible, in fact its probably the exact opposite, its a history book" isn't being a dick, it's being factual.

And the post I responded to didn't mention civility, it mentioned a group of people (religious DU'ers of various stripes) as having a RIGHT to "to express their religious beliefs without hindrance or being subject to ridicule."

Sorry, but no such right exists. Civility is a different thing, and I don't think saying a history book is the opposite of what the bible is, is at all uncivil.

[Union Scribe]

67. It was intentionally insulting

If that's how the OP or anyone else wishes to behave, they aren't going to have a lot of positive encounters with people. Being snide and superior is not a liberal or intelligent thing, it's just a being a dick thing.

[Summer Hathaway]

105. "It's just being a dick thing"

[muriel_volestrangler]

143. Bollocks. You are writing a whole load of bollocks in this thread

You are claiming that the woman wasn't assuming that any thick book must be the bible, when it's clear that has to be what she thought, because she had nothing else to go on. You think that her assumption wasn't 'silly'; it's very silly to assume that a thick book is a bible - there are thousands of other thick books. She criticised Drale saying the bible is the opposite of a history book with "it's God's word"; this does mark her down as a fervent believer.

Now you are joining in the insulting of a DUer, saying they were 'being a dick'.

You have filled your posts in this thread with utter tosh.

[Summer Hathaway]

161. From the OP ...

"I was carrying a book about the Tudors, and it is about the size and thickness of the Bible."

And then the OP responds to another poster with:

"To be fair, the copy I have is hard covered with a black cover so it could be mistaken as a Bible"

Ergo, the woman having mistaken the book for a Bible was not so silly after all, even according to the OP.

But if you want to see some truly asinine assumptions, read the posts on this thread - people assuming that anyone who believes the Bible is the word of God is a RW maniac, a Bible-thumper, a religious fanatic, etc. I've met many people who take the Bible quite seriously - but they don't fall into any of those categories. And some of them are lefty Democrats, and most of them do not expect others to believe as they do - they consider their own beliefs to be their own, and are totally accepting of the fact that those beliefs are not shared by everyone.

Wow! So I'm joining in the insulting of a DUer! Well, if the 'dickish behavior' shoe fits, you've got to figure people are going to say so. And many of them have.

What is particularly amusing about this website is seeing people who hold themselves out as "true progressives, true liberals" applauding someone for insulting an old lady based on her religious beliefs.

We've all seen the posts that decry bullying/insulting behavior when it comes to gays and lesbians, the physically disabled, the mentally challenged, etc. And yet when it comes to insulting an old woman because she's a Bible-believing Christian, and going the extra mile to express the hope she has a lousy day, THAT is not only acceptable - it is something to be lauded.

True liberals/true progressives, my ass. More like a bunch of poseurs, feigning outrage when politically convenient - while cheering not only being insulting to someone because of their religious beliefs, but applauding the idea of wishing ill on her in the bargain.

And now the countdown begins - 10, 9, 8, 7 seconds before someone alerts on this post because I have been "hurtful, rude, and insensitive" by pointing out how
hurtful, rude and insensitive others have been in this thread, and on this site as a whole.

Choosing to be insulting (which the OP clearly did) and then hoping someone of a differing religious view has a bad day is NOT now, NEVER was, and NEVER will be a liberal/progressive value - and the fact that this has to be pointed out to people who pride themselves on their alleged liberal/progressive 'values' speaks for itself.

[pipi_k]

123. Nobody

OWES reverence to anybody here:

But to suggest that I or the OP or anyone else OWES some sort of special reverence for people that cling to the idea that the god of Abraham and Isaac is a real thing is the dogs bollocks.

However, it's nice when people can act civilly toward each other.

So an older lady made a wrong assumption.

Big deal.

When asked if it was the Bible the OP was reading, how damned difficult would it have been to reply civilly, "No, it isn't".

And then leaving it at that.

So you're right...nobody owes any special reverence to Christians or any other group.

But it costs nothing...absolutely nothing at all...to act like a civil (adult) human being, even when someone makes a wrong assumption.

[Summer Hathaway]

184. ...

"I'm sure the Muslims, Buddhists, Christians, Jews, etc. who post here will be happy to know ..."

"But to suggest that I or the OP or anyone else OWES some sort of special reverence for people that cling to the idea that the god of Abraham ..."

No one suggested that people who hold certain religious beliefs are OWED special reverence. But I do think that common courtesy would dictate that being rude to an old woman because she believes in the Bible, and then wishing her a bad day on top of said uncalled-for rudeness, would be a considered as childish as it is ill-mannered.

The fact that the OP was so delighted that he'd hopefully ruined someone's day, and actually takes pride in his obvious inability to conduct himself as a decent human being, speaks for itself.

Yeah, this board is just filled with "liberals/progressives" - what a fuckin' joke.

[amuse bouche]

82. Religion is fraud

You are free to pretend otherwise but I will not be bullied into submission

[Summer Hathaway]

85. "I will not be bullied into submission."

That's right up there with the ever-popular "don't tell me to STFU" response from people who were never told to STFU.

You have every right to believe that all religion is a fraud. Just as those who believe in their religion have every right to do so.

No one here "bullied you into submission" - but don't let that stop you from claiming that you were.

Sadly, the Meta forum is gone - you could have started a two-hundred-plus-replies OP about how you were "bullied" by other posters, despite the fact that no one "bullied" you about anything.

What came first - the persecution complex, or the paranoia? Or aren't they one and the same?

[amuse bouche]

155. I was mocking the typical

Christian meme. ...gotcha

[LanternWaste]

147. As are a host of wholly man-made constructs which exist no where but our imaginations

"Religion is fraud..."

As are a host of wholly man-made constructs which exist no where but our imaginations; e.g., politics, economics, philosophy, law, the arts, etc.

Yet we often rationalize one or more of these imaginary constructs to the point in which we allow many of them to wield great control over our actions and our lives while yet ridiculing the illusory fancies of others.

"And thus is my conclusion" wrote Shakespeare "that man is a giddy thing..." (in one of his imaginary stories, nonetheless); and we will often find ways to, as you said, "pretend otherwise."

[amuse bouche]

151. Eloquently stated

[Quantess]

183. Where does it say they can't be ridiculed?

Not their face or anything, because that's just rude. Mocking, ridiculing someone's religion is not my style, but it isn't prohibited, is it?

Where in the constitution does it say anything about not criticizing religions?

In my view, religion is the work of elevated primates (humans) establishing the status quo and power structure in a society with official belief system. You can go shove your religions, all of them.

[snooper2]

72. that's a cool rant..

but I take a different perspective....

I hear all day long about Jesus and God. Watch the news, somebody falls on the ice and breaks an arm, the anchors say "well we pray she gets well soon"... Blah blah blah, respect others beliefs etc., etc.,


it's all nice and pleasant but I reserve my right to

Seriously, it's 2013, at some point people just need to get over it and stop being offended by those of us that try to explain- "Nothing is really up there." Hearing that should only affect your ability to reason.

[Summer Hathaway]

75. You have every right to dismiss the religious beliefs of others.

You also have a right to be polite when they express those beliefs - and whether you choose to be courteous in certain circumstances is totally up to you.

"at some point people just need to get over it and stop being offended by those of us that try to explain- "Nothing is really up there."

And at what point do people just need to get over the fact that some people DO believe there is something up there, and are as entitled to their beliefs as you are entitled to yours?

At what point do people need to get over the fact that saying "there is nothing up there" is no more convincing than someone saying "Yes, there IS"?

Religious conviction is no more swayed by your dismissal of their convictions than someone's dismissal of YOUR convictions is swayed.

Or do you honestly believe that YOUR beliefs are somehow more valid than someone else's, simply because they are YOUR beliefs?

[snooper2]

77. I'm pretty cool, I don't get in people's faces..

but when they start going all god it's either a smirk or a head-shake LOL...

like really, come on, we were talking about seating valves- don't go all woo woo on me


as to your other points-
And at what point do people just need to get over the fact that some people DO believe there is something up there, and are as entitled to their beliefs as you are entitled to yours?

ME-Religion's had enough time-



At what point do people need to get over the fact that saying "there is nothing up there" is no more convincing than someone saying "Yes, there IS"?

ME- Well, something is up there, but we can measure it and visualize it. I was mistaken. But no, no gates LOL



Religious conviction is no more swayed by your dismissal of their convictions than someone's dismissal of YOUR convictions is swayed.
Or do you honestly believe that YOUR beliefs are somehow more valid than someone else's, simply because they are YOUR beliefs?

ME- See, that's the misunderstanding. I don't have "beliefs". We can observe and see the shit that is around us in the Universe. Can Jesus survive a black hole? No pastor will answer that question directly. Hell? Yeah, lot's of research has been done on the molten core of Earth. Seriously. If you want to get into a discussion about me explaining "it's not real" versus what science has taught us over the last 500 years, it's a losing argument FYI."

[Summer Hathaway]

83. Religious belief

rightly or wrongly, is a not a matter of science, but a matter of faith.

For some (not for me) that faith transcends all else. I do not need to share anyone's religious beliefs in order to respect their right to believe them. I do not feel compelled to belittle anyone's faith in order to feel somehow superior. I do not require answers that satisfy ME as a basis for dismissing those who require no sound evidence for their faith.

I draw the line, as do most intelligent people, at teaching said religious beliefs in our classrooms - but that's a matter of Church -v- State, not a matter of what one is 'permitted' to believe in the context of their own religion, or their right to believe as they see fit.

I guess I'm just one of those God-damned liberal-thinking Democrats who think that the freedom to practice one's religion is a protected right under the Constitution - and whether I agree with the tenets of their religion, or any religion, is neither here nor there.

Perhaps you believe - as the OP apparently does - that pissing off those who believe differently than you, and wishing them a 'bad day' as a result of that difference somehow proves something. I don't - unless you want to prove how intolerant people can be of others' beliefs.

DU is a 'progressive/liberal' website - my ass. It's become just another place where bigotry and narrow-minded, black-and-white thinking is congratulated as being 'liberal', so long as the victims of the much-decried 'bullying' are those you don't agree with - because they 'were asking for it' and 'had it coming'.

It is increasingly difficult to differentiate DU from FreeRepublic - when both sites are now supporting the idea that any religious beliefs contrary to their own are not only suspect, but worthy of derision.

[Art_from_Ark]

93. You have touched upon something

Last edited Wed Mar 13, 2013, 04:09 AM - Edit history (1)

I tried to introduce my mom to this site once, since she is a good Democrat and has been since 1960. She's not a "Bible-thumper", but she is a Christian. When she saw a bunch of threads with fervent anti-Christian diatribes written by smug, know-it-all self-aggrandizers, it was an immediate turn-off for her.

[Summer Hathaway]

100. I can understand that.

I am not a Christian, nor do I believe the Bible was ever meant to be taken literally.

However, I respect the beliefs of others, regardless of whether I share them or not.

My mother (now passed) was a devout Catholic - she fervently believed that if she prayed fervently enough to the Mother of God, the Blessed Virgin Mary, her prayers would be answered and all would be well.

Although I didn't share that belief, it never crossed my mind to tell her she was wasting her time praying to (what I believed to be) the non-existent mother of a non-existent deity.

My mother's faith was a solid foundation in her life - and it was a comfort to her in the end. What purpose would have been served in disagreeing with her beliefs, other than to attempt to destroy what she found to be so comforting, so validating?

Unfortunately, there are those here who believe that undermining the religious beliefs of those they don't agree with is some kind of prize to be sought after, some kind of accomplishment worthy of praise. That mindset, in and of itself, is pathetic beyond words.

[liberal_at_heart]

171. very well said. You make some very valid points about DU.

[Summer Hathaway]

173. Thank you, L@H ...

Of course, those to whom I have held up the mirror will never recognize their own reflections therein.

[Union Scribe]

94. This is not the first time you have floated

your remarkably cute idea that religion is disproved by there being "no gates" in the actual sky. The first time I figured it was just something you let slip, but it now seems that's your no-shit go-to argument. Is the whole of your knowledge of religious beliefs made up of Peanuts cartoon strips or Hallmark cards? It's just not at all impressive.

But I'm glad you don't get in people's faces with that...except online...which the lot of you seem to save your charming condescension for.

[snooper2]

107. I've posted threads in the religion forum

Where are the gates?

these simple ass questions never get a straight answer

[Summer Hathaway]

164. Maybe your simple-ass questions

don't get a straight answer because they're too simple-assed to be taken seriously. By anyone.

[snooper2]

176. Yeah, simple questions like, is "god" made up of matter?

Did god create black holes?

[Control-Z]

16. I kind of figure people like that

are having a bad day anyway. Bad week, bad year, bad life. So I try to feel sorry for them. Though I do have trouble saying anything nice.

If they're trying to preach to me, I politely tell them not to bother because I'm Atheist. That usually shuts them up. But I have to admit, a gawd bless you out of anyone makes my blood boil. Seriously. Something about including me in their delusion really skeeves me out.

[HoneychildMooseMoss]

17. -100000000

So you got your jollies by wishing one of the weakest members of society to have a terrible day, just because her religion doesn't jibe with whatever passes as a religion with you. Well, aren't YOU special!

[A HERETIC I AM]

36. "One of the weakest members of society"?!? Seriously?

For all you know, that elderly woman has a net worth in the 7 figures.

Jesus H. Christ in a sidecar. Why is it that people, regardless of their alleged social station, who insist on making religious pronouncements to complete strangers be given a pass merely because of the nature of the statement?

Fervent belief in the existence of the god of Abraham provides no more credibility or excuse from rude behaviour than does the belief there are Faeries doing tight laps around your head.

[Summer Hathaway]

39. Where was the "religious pronouncement" here?

An old woman stating that she believes the Bible is the word of God?

Well, she's got some fuckin' nerve expressing that view! Next thing you know, liberals will be expressing their views on the use of drones, economists will be expressing their views on the deficit, environmentalists will be expressing their views on fracking!

When will this madness of people expressing their opinions end!?!?!!!

[Arugula Latte]

135. So it should be a one-way street, huh?

Old lady can spout her opinion at a stranger, but the reverse isn't true? Why is that, I wonder...

[rurallib]

20. the only thing I see here that is bad is a Cubs logo.......

[Smilo]

23. I think you handled it brilliantly

I would have loved to have seen her face.

Drale you deserve a and a big

Keep up the good work!

[Cleita]

25. Well, you and our family dog Fanny, who chased off a couple of

Jehovah's Witnesses from our back gate today. Is Fanny a bad dog too? I did give her a treat. I think you should have one too.



Enjoy.

What is my reasoning? That lady invaded your space. When you politely told her you were reading a history book, it was very rude of her to say that you were badmouthing her good book. She crossed the line then. Fanny, also felt her space being invaded when they tried to open the gate and she reacted with a lot of loud barking and showing of teeth. I'm sure those religious zealots will have a bad day thinking about what could have happened.

[Summer Hathaway]

47. I see.

So now attempting to strike up a conversation with someone about what they are reading is an "invasion of space"? I'll keep that in mind the next time someone on the subway tries to "invade my space" by opining on the weather, or commenting on my reading of "War and Peace" while commuting.

"When you politely told her you were reading a history book ..."

Exactly what was 'polite' about responding to the query by saying, "This is not a bible, in fact its probably the exact opposite, its a history book"?

The 'polite' answer would have been, "No, it's not the Bible. It's a history book." Stating that a history book was "probably the exact opposite" of the Bible was uncalled for in 'polite' conversation.

So your dog barked and showed her teeth when strangers attempted to enter your property? Yes, that's EXACTLY the same as someone attempting to start a conversation with a fellow train passenger.

I'm SO GLAD you recognized that one is EXACTLY the same as the other.

[Cleita]

48. If you can't see the rudeness and inappropriateness in the old woman's remark, then I'm

going to have to assume you are a fellow "christian" who feels that you have to interject your religion into conversations with strangers and then you get upset when that stranger doesn't share your views. Trespassing is trespassing. I don't care if it's going on property you aren't invited on to, or asking what you are reading, which is the private property of your mind.

[Summer Hathaway]

50. Actually, I am not a Christian.

And the fact that you "assumed" so is telling.

As a long-time daily commuter to work, I have had many conversations with fellow passengers on the subway. I see nothing untoward in someone saying, "I see you're reading such-and-such," whether they are mistaken in what I am actually reading or not.

Heaven forefend that someone on a train attempt to converse with someone else - what IS this world coming to?

People attempting to converse with others - OMG!!!! Will we EVER be safe from such trespassing? When will this uncalled-for "reading of the private property of my mind" CEASE!!!! What next? - someone asking me (as though it's ANY of their business) what I think about the weather?

Good luck in that paranoid little world you inhabit, where people attempting to make conversation with other people is to be seen as "trespassing" into your private little universe.

Again I would reiterate that your assumption that I am a Christian (completely off the mark) is more telling about YOU than anything else.

[Cleita]

51. But would you have accused one of those commuters of making fun of the book if

it turned out not to be what you thought it was?

Otherwise, I really don't care about your assumptions about me. You have already really proved how narrow-minded you are in your own words to me.

[Summer Hathaway]

92. Where did I say

that I would have 'made fun' of someone if their assumption of a book being read turned out to be not what they thought it was?

If you are actually trying to make sense, you're missing the mark by miles.

[KittyWampus]

56. So anyone who brings up small talk during your daily routine is "invading your space"? WOW!

That is utterly pathetic.

[Cleita]

78. If they criticize me when it wasn't appropriate, yes.

How dare they? I also may not believe that the bible is god's word. Isn't it rude to accuse someone of that when no one asked them to begin with? I'm actually at the end of my patience with bible thumpers trying to shove pamphlets and bibles into my hands and interrupting me in my home to proselytize. I actually own four bibles, in different translations and versions. I have them for information and reference, not for inspiration. If I should happen to be reading "Game of Thrones" and someone assumes it's the Bible and I inform them otherwise, and I'm accused of comparing it to God's word, when I said nothing of the sort, it seems I would be the victim or in this case it would be the OP who was so accused.

I think this religious evangelism is ruining our country and the people who have drunk the Kool-Aid are really getting bold and pushy with their proselytizing. I think they are dangerous and need to be stopped.

[Union Scribe]

91. "need to be stopped"

That's not extremist or anything. How exactly are you going to "stop" this national danger of ladies commenting on Bibles in public?

[Cleita]

96. By letting them know their actions are not welcome.

Apparently, we should let those righteous religious folks impose themselves in our space and privacy according to some here. How ridiculous.

[Union Scribe]

98. No, ridiculous is flying off the handle

by a comment made in passing by another person in a public place. Ridiculous is thinking such behavior is some violation of rights you're imagining. And ridiculous is harboring such ill will towards said person that it winds up in the ugly lump of mean that is the original post in this thread. Utterly ridiculous.

[Cleita]

99. What if somebody followed you down the street and told you your

clothes were inappropriate but they had acceptable clothes for you and you should wear them or be damned to fashion hell? You would tell them, it's none of their business and an invasion of your privacy. Well, people commenting on what you read or refuse to read, whether you believe in their god and their bible or not or they won't be saved, saved from what I don't know, but you know it happens. Yet, some here think it's not a violation of privacy or one's space if you will. It's just okay and and oh so mean to call mean people out when they are the first ones being mean. If people don't see that, then that is very wrong and intolerant in our society and very narrow minded.

[Union Scribe]

102. And what if they had a hammer and were hitting you...

Your "what if"s are moot. Who is being followed? How often do random people tell you you're going to hell? The woman in the OP mistook a book for a Bible and (gasp) said something not negative about the Bible. For that she has been transformed into a raving right wing Bible-thumper intent on harassing poor victims of her oppressive religion (who mostly post on DU, apparently, and are VERY concerned about the danger such loose cannons pose in society).

[Cleita]

111. I dunno. If I had seen a bible on someone and they informed me it was probably

the opposite and not a bible. I would have just said, "Oh, sorry, my mistake". I wouldn't have taken offense about it. The woman was insulting in her reply, "You shouldn't talk about the good book that way. It's God's word." That was very insulting and that woman was out of line.

[Cleita]

112. This conversation has so devolved into stupid.

I would love to sit around and argue inane BS with you, but frankly I have a life and you should get one too.

[pipi_k]

138. Suggestion...

OK, so you don't want to be bothered by certain people.

Instead of assuming they all have mind reading powers that would let them know you don't want to be bothered, I suggest wearing a sign to warn them off before they even get the chance.

Some people have a "no solicitors" sign on their doors. Some have signs warning people, "Beware of dog". "No trespassing". Etc.

I suggest wearing a sign that says, "Religious kooks...fuck off!"

That should take care of the problem, I would think.

[Cleita]

144. We have dogs. That does keep the Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons at the gate. It doesn't

stop them from throwing pamphlets and other trash onto the property. I'm a small woman and they have no problem backing me into a corner or wall to try to get me to take one of their pieces of literature or even Bibles when I'm out shopping. I frankly think your sign would be very offensive. I wish we had a statute that prevented religious fanatics from approaching you. They could set up a card table with their stuff and if people are interested, they can approach them, not the other way around.

[hlthe2b]

174. My neighbor has a "no solicitation" sign on his door... That seems to do the trick...

Or one could simply not answer the door. I just don't know why there is such a strong desire to go out of ones way to be insulting and uncivil. Is it really such an imposition to merely firmly state one does not agree and do not care to discuss such issues?

Is going out of ones' way to be unpleasant the "go to" response now for liberal/progressives? I think NOT.

[pipi_k]

175. As annoying as some

of them can be, I've never seen one of them back someone into a wall or a corner. Ever.

When someone tries to hand me one of their silly tracts, I take it and then throw it in the trash. One less for them to foist on someone else, no?

You find my idea of a sign offensive, but have no problem with being offensive to another human being who, lacking Jedi mind control powers, can't tell who may or may not be receptive to their literature or opinion.

I don't see where people can expect to have total privacy out in public. If someone is calling me on my phone, or coming to my house, then that's a whole different story.

And this does not mean that I never become annoyed when someone approaches me in public. I just try to act like an adult instead of a petulant child whose playtime has been interrupted.

[Summer Hathaway]

110. Where did the old lady in the OP

criticize anyone? She stated her belief that the Bible is the word of God. Where did she criticize anyone for believing differently?

"I'm actually at the end of my patience with bible thumpers trying to shove pamphlets and bibles into my hands and interrupting me in my home to proselytize." What does ANY of that have to do with the OP? Was the woman in question shoving pamphlets in someone's face, or interrupting them at their home in order to proselytize?

"If I should happen to be reading "Game of Thrones" and someone assumes it's the Bible and I inform them otherwise, and I'm accused of comparing it to God's word, when I said nothing of the sort, it seems I would be the victim or in this case it would be the OP who was so accused."

Enlighten us - where was the OP accused of comparing "Game of Thrones" to God's word? Where was the OP "so accused"?

Paranoid much? Persecution complex got the better of you?

For someone who doesn't believe in Christianity, you sure seem overly-anxious to nail yourself to a cross and cry out for sympathy because someone else put you up there through their pamphlets and thrusting Bibles in your face.

What needs to be stopped is people who are TOO FUCKING STUPID to know the difference between an old lady on a train commenting on someone reading a Bible, mistaken as that assumption may have been, and people who perceive a comment about "reading the Bible" as proselytizing and comparing "Game of Thrones" to the "word of God" - which no one did, except in your own warped mind.

[pipi_k]

180. Hah!!!

Pretty funny, actually.

I mean, bringing a dog into the discussion.

Dogs do not possess the reasoning capabilities of an adult human being, and therefore they do what their owner tells them to.

Not sure if I'd equate an adult human being's willful action with the trained act of an animal, but whatever blows yer skirts up...

[TheMastersNemesis]

26. I Would Have Told Her It Was The Communist Manifesto

Not that I believe in such a volume. Just a way to really mess with her limited intelligence.

[madinmaryland]

28. Hmmm. I am reading about the Plantagenet's. Several interesting works

on Eleanor of Aquitaine, Henry I, and Richard III.

Interesting learning about these eras in English history.

[amuse bouche]

31. Bravo

I'm fed up with the God Frauds too.

[Pisces]

32. I don't think giving an old woman a hard time is something to enjoy. A middle aged or young zealot

go for it. But I just imagine my grandma and there is no amount of conversation that would have swayed her
against the Catholic Church which I completely oppose. Let old people enjoy their remaining days with whatever illusions
they want to have.

[Egalitarian Thug]

34. Wishing her a "terrible rest of the day" is pushing it, but I say , no, you're not a bad person. n/t

[Le Taz Hot]

40. So you were an asshole to

a little old lady. Quite an achievement.

[NCTraveler]

116. +1 nt

[Arugula Latte]

134. She was an asshole to the OP.

Who is she to tell him what he should and should not speak about when it comes to the freakin' bible?

[Le Taz Hot]

137. She's a little old lady.

Maybe he could have CHOSEN to show a little compassion, patience and understanding. At any time, in any given situation, one can choose to be an assbite or one can choose not to be an assbite. Personally, I find that the cosmos are nicer to me when I'm nicer to the cosmos.

[Arugula Latte]

140. She initiated the incident, though.

It wasn't like the OP went up to her and said: "Hey, numbnuts! Why are you reading that stupid book of mythology?!"

[Le Taz Hot]

142. In my experience,

two wrongs never did make a right. Two wrongs usually make a mess. Besides, you might want to re-read my previous post in terms of "choice." It's an important factor in all parts of one's life.

[The2ndWheel]

146. The OP escalted the conversation into something different

I'm glad to see young people still reading the bible.

Sorry, this isn't the bible.

Short and sweet. End of discussion. A simple mistake. It was a different book. Very boring exchange between two people. Nobody cares. Certainly not dialogue worthy of posting on a message board.

No, the OP adds that the book is actually the exact opposite of the bible, it's a history book. That's what started the far more interesting back and forth.

[Summer Hathaway]

162. She initiated the incident?

By saying she's glad to see young people reading the Bible?

Yeah, she's got some fuckin' nerve saying that - she was SO obviously looking for a confrontation.

Falls into the category of "she was asking for it" - doesn't it?

[Arugula Latte]

165. Oh, FFS

She said the comment to him, first. He replied with quite a mild comment. She was the one who was judgmental "You shouldn't say that -- god's word, blah blah.."

You're equating his mild comment with rape? Jesus H. Christ.

Get over yourself.

[Summer Hathaway]

170. I equated a comment to rape?!?

What are you tokin'?

I don't think there is any point in continuing a conversation with someone who sees a reference to rape when there wasn't one.

But please go back to your cheerleading of the OP - we wouldn't want someone who chose to be rude, disrespected an old woman's religion for no purpose other than to giggle at the idea of upsetting her, and then hoped she had a bad day, to go unappreciated by all those 'liberal/progressives' who find his behavior commendable.

[pipi_k]

182. If she's old enough...

My mom will be 79 this year.

Her mental faculties are slipping a bit. She often says inappropriate things.


It really disgusts me how many so-called "Liberals" think treating the elderly...many of whom may have some degree of mental deterioration...like shit.

This hatred directed toward the elderly by many DUers...I often wonder what the root of it is. Fear? Ignorance?

Whatever it is, it sucks.

[surrealAmerican]

41. Pissing off fanatics is like ...

Last edited Tue Mar 12, 2013, 09:58 PM - Edit history (1)

... shooting fish in a barrel. It's way to easy to be entertaining. Then again, I just get depressed at such encounters. Maybe it's better that you can be amused.

[randome]

42. Does everyone in your extended family think the same way as you?

If not, would you have been rude to them as well?

I'm no believer in religion but certain members of my extended family are. I would not be rude to them and I would not look kindly on you if you were rude to them.

FWIW.

[Posteritatis]

45. Insufficient data for 'bad person,' but you're certainly coming across like a bit of a jerk. (nt)

[Liberal_in_LA]

46. hmmff!

[Demo_Chris]

49. kick and rec n/t

[KittyWampus]

57. So you acted like a jerk and post about it on DU for validation and get it.

How nice.

[Arcanetrance]

59. Picking on old ladies such a big tough person you are.

See its shit like this that make us all look bad. There are a million more polite ways to correct her as to what you were reading. Also wishing a person has a bad rest of the day cause of something you said shows the size of the ego you have to think she will give a shit about you past this encounter.

[Union Scribe]

68. That really is the most telling line about the whole thing

Their hoping they'd ruined her whole day is an exceptionally ugly revelation.

[Union Scribe]

60. She was a "right wing maniac"?

For misidentifying your book, and then having the nerve of being irked by your intentionally irksome comment? Kid, maybe you should sign up for a course on manners.

[Zax2me]

70. You stuck it the old lady!

Try it with the Koran, to a group of young Muslims on a train.
I'll wait for your post.
Eternally.

[lunamagica]

74. Lol!!!! I'll wait with you, Wonderful reply!

Sooo tough and brave confronting an old woman. and then bragging about it. Color me way way unimpressed

[Warpy]

76. Well, she intruded in on your space, you didn't intrude in on hers

so she was fair game.

They need to be reminded that the rest of us live here, too.

But yes, you did ruin her day unless she was on her way to church to cluck about it to the other attendees. In that case, you made her day.

[olddots]

86. meanwhile back at the ranch

You handled it better than I would have , as far as who is the good person ---- lets let the superstitious judge as usual .

[olddots]

101. well I guess we can't talk about politics or religion here.

I've seen really nice sites fall apart from less than this thread,I don't want DU to follow suit .

[sakabatou]

108. Bad tact there, Drale

IMO

[Quantess]

109. The woman set herself up for it.

She solicited you with her opinion, and you offered yours right back.

If it were me though, I wouldn't really care what kind of day she had. Maybe that part (hoping she had a bad day) is mean spirited...

[Drale]

118. This women inserted her beliefs into my day while I was minding my own business

"She solicited you with her opinion, and you offered yours right back." Thank you Quantess. That is the essence of democracy. I did not start the confrontation but I sure as hell finished it. One of the biggest problems with the religious right is that they someone believe that we are a "christian" country and that every white blooded American must be a Christian, she made assumptions that are borderline bigotry and racist yet I'm the jerk for pointing out that the Bible is neither "God's word" nor is it a history as so many of them believe? I am so tired of the religious right trying to force me and everyone else into their tiny little world view so yes I did hope she had a bad day, because maybe just maybe she would realize that her bad day was God's way of telling her to stop with the religious bullshit and just be a good person because thats how you should be in a civilized society. If she did not want my opinion, she should not have shared hers.

[randome]

119. From what you describe, it didn't sound like a 'confrontation'.

[The2ndWheel]

121. That was a confrontation?

You say she started off by commenting, on her misjudgement of a book that you say looks like the Bible, that she was glad to see that young people were still reading the Bible. You don't say how she said it, but it doesn't seem as though there was any maliciousness involved. You then escalated the conversation into something else. According to you, it was then that she started with the God's word stuff.

You chose to be an overt ass for no good reason in the scenario you described. Just be a good person because that's how you should be in a civilized society. A simple "oh, this isn't the bible" really would've done the job. But then you don't get to pat yourself on the back and talk about it on a message board, because who cares about an innocent exchange between two people like that.

[pipi_k]

145. "This woman inserted her beliefs

into my day while I was minding my own business"

That's the rationale for being rude?

I say bullshit to that one.

The real problem, as I see it, is that her beliefs were not the same as yours.

Had someone whose beliefs you agreed with inserted them into your day, I'll bet the interactions would have been a whole lot different.


I think people who don't want to be bothered by other people's different beliefs should do themselves...and others...the favor of listing those beliefs on a cardboard sign stapled to their chests and backs for others to read before initiating contact.

Voila! They don't get bothered. And people who wrongly assume the rest of the world is halfway civil don't waste their time and energy on people who can't be civil.

[The2ndWheel]

114. You got her good, no denying that

She was glad young people might still take an interest in what she's been interested in. Nobody has the right to intrude on someone like that. Just a violation of the highest order.

You could've easily said that it wasn't the bible, and just stopped there. Or even show her what book you did have, without the clever comeback, and maybe even get her interested in reading it. How can you pass up an opportunity to potentially piss off an older lady though, right?

[Patiod]

117. Win more flies with honey and all that.

No minds were opened, but you upset an old lady.

Having said that, I've been toting my library's copy of Wolf Hall around, and it's Bible-sized. Will splurge on getting Bring Up the Bodies on Kindle. I'd like to read it while I can still keep all the Cromwells and Cranmers and Annes and Katherines straight.

[amuse bouche]

152. Why would

anyone want to win flies?

[Dreamer Tatum]

124. She should be jailed and her assets transferred to you. nt

[Throd]

125. Not necessarily a bad person, but a jackass for sure.

Hope she has a terrible rest of the day? How terrible? Lose her purse terrible, or have an aneurism terrible?

[Drale]

126. Loose her keys, bump her head

walk into a door. I would never wish something horrible on someone.

[pipi_k]

133. Yeah, because

she might not have been having a bad enough day as it was, right?

No chance in hell she could have been traveling to see a sick or dying friend or relative.

No chance at all she might be dealing with serious financial worries or anything.


No chance at all she could have had anything more serious going on than accosting innocent people in the streets conducting interrogations on people's choice of reading material, right?

It's really disgusting how shabbily human beings act toward each other when there is absolutely no need for it.

[amuse bouche]

153. Oh boohoo

a little truth might do her some good

[The2ndWheel]

156. Was it about truth telling?

Sounds like it was more about just lately really enjoying pissing right wing maniacs and religious zealots off. Not looking for a fight, but maybe eager to start one if given the chance.

[amuse bouche]

157. I'll vote with truth telling

and you can run down any rabbit hole you desire

[The2ndWheel]

159. The OP said it, not me

[pipi_k]

177. Again...

I'll repeat what I wrote somewhere above...

There's a small but disturbing population here that revels in insulting/pissing off/telling off people who are unable to punch their insulters in the face.

Older ladies. Elderly men. Young moms with little kids in the grocery stores.

I don't ever see anyone come in and brag about how they got in the face of someone twice their size. Or a whole group of strong young men.

They're running around "telling the truth" to people who can't kick their asses for doing it.

Heroes. Yeah, that's what they are.

[Poll_Blind]

167. Somebody alerted this post. Jury voted 5-1 to LEAVE IT.

At Wed Mar 13, 2013, 11:17 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Loose her keys, bump her head
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2500057

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

Wishes that a person he never met \"looses her keys, bumps her head, walks into a door\" only for being a Christian.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Wed Mar 13, 2013, 11:26 PM, and the Jury voted 1-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT and said: The entire thread is ugly in its intolerance. Since when is it a progressive value to go out of ones way to be contemptuous of others for asking an innocent question/assumption--even when it represents a belief not shared?

Sorry, but celebrating being horrendously rude towards a stranger who offered no offense is contemptible. Selecting what "punishment" they would like to see happen to the "offending" stranger for their non-shared beliefs is beyond the pale. I'm happy to vote to hide this.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: The poster says he 'would not wish anything horrible on anyone' minor malice is not hide worthy in the context of this thread
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Jesus.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Aimed at an old lady who is not a DUer. Just move one.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: This isn't a violation of the TOS. A recipe for bad karma, maybe. But not TOS violation material.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[datasuspect]

127. you're not a bad person

lacking in class or manners? possibly. but definitely not a bad person.

just because someone reads a bible doesn't make them a religious zealot.

and picking on older ladies? kinda tacky and disrespectful.

but what do i know, i still get in fistfights at gas stations and grocery stores.

[pipi_k]

129. Congratulations on pissing off

an old person.

It seems to be a top ten activity for a lot of people who claim to be "Liberals"...which, according to the definition of the word, means someone who is tolerant of other people and differing opinions.

I've seen so many cases where DUers brag gleefully about how they told off this one or pissed off that one.

The common theme seems to be that the person they've told/pissed off is someone who is either older, or someone unlikely to kick the braggart's ass.

A group of old guys in a McDonald's discussing politics.

An older man and his wife in a different fast food place.

A single mom in line in a supermarket.

Those are the three I recall most.

I don't recall ever seeing a post from someone bragging over telling off a huge muscular guy who could probably crush that person with one hand.

It's usually older people. Just like that lady.


So. That lady assumed something about the book you were reading. You assumed something about her character.

Why is her "crime" worse than yours?

You know, I have a friend who posts religious stuff all the time on Facebook. She's far from being a RW bible thumping crazy. She is quite Liberal. In some ways even more liberal than some of the so-called "liberals" right here on DU. She's certainly more tolerant.

And because she's tolerant, I don't even mind seeing the religious stuff she posts on Facebook.

[Bicoastal]

130. Old lady: ""I'm glad to see young people still reading the bible." (!!!!!!)

Boy oh boy did that awful maniac get all up in your face and confront you! You sure did the world in general and atheism in particular a great service by being snide and making her feel bad about her beliefs!

I for one am of the opinion that friendly old women should always be called on their dumb mistakes all the time and publicly be called out for the horrible people they really are. I mean, that's just SMART, right?

[Fresh_Start]

136. I would argue that science books are the opposite of the Bible

History has been as much in the eye of the beholder as the Bible.
Churchill said “History is written by the victors.”

You only need to see the textbook battles in Texas as they exclude non-conservative views from their textbook to realize that history is potentially as flawed as the bible.

[LanternWaste]

141. I imagine many people entertain themselves by pissing off others...

I imagine many people entertain themselves by pissing off others-- e.g., you, the woman in question, many in this thread... yet the true art lies in how we rationalize it to ourselves, and pretend that predicating our base actions on the (at worst) benign acts of others is part of who we are.

However, I also realize we may often find pride in petulance. So, congratulations!!!


"Am I a bad person?"
Most likely only you can validly answer that... much as you are the only one who can answer that question's corollary.

[cleanhippie]

148. Meh. The religious get pissed at anything one might have to say unless its agreement with them.

Have a look at the religion forum sometime.

[BuddhaGirl]

149. you're not a "bad" person, just maybe lacking in compassion

She's entitled to her beliefs, as are you...and trying to rise above the type of reaction you felt is the key, no?

[Evoman]

150. Eh. I wouldn't wish her a terrible day, but a zinger for being nosy is alright.

I don't think you were particularly rude. You didn't say anything about her, nor did you attack her in anyways. Attacking or critizing a belief system is not the same as attacking or criticizing the person holding that belief. Besides, your comment was light sauce...barely offensive.

Honestly, her little command to not talk about the good book like that was probably ruder. To be honest, in your place, I probably would just have said "no, its a book on the Tudors" and then ignored her. Although, if she seemed nice, I would have asked her what she knew about the Tudors......old ladies seem to love their royalty, lol.

[RKP5637]

158. The man in the sky time has passed, and long overdue, but some will need and cling to it ... n/t

[liberal_at_heart]

163. geez!

[Renew Deal]

166. Classy

[Nye Bevan]

168. I would probably have said something like "Yes! I love it!"

Put a smile on an old lady's face at no cost to you. Hoping that an old lady has a "terrible rest of the day" wouldn't make me feel good about myself.

[Summer Hathaway]

172. Congratulations!

You win this thread!

Now THAT would have been a perfect response - and would have "put a smile on an old lady's face at no cost".

In fact, her reaction to your response probably would have put a smile on your face as well. Those things can be catching.

[hlthe2b]

169. I'm still trying to figure out what this woman did to deserve such a response...

She may not share your beliefs (or mine) but geebus-- I don't go out of my way to be offensive to those with whom I disagree. Is that your idea of progressive values? Really?

[Paladin]

178. +1. (nt)

[murielm99]

179. My mother, who is eighty-four,

probably would have said something similar. She has voted since Truman was President. She has never voted for a repubbie in her life.

I would have ignored the whole thing, and just smiled.

There are Christians who are Democrats.

[Dpm12]

181. Christianity is hateful bullshit

n/t