(Post a new comment)

	phosfate 2003-12-10 07:50 pm UTC (link)
	He's posted an attempted explanation that begins, "Okay, it seems that I have to explain myself because people are incapable of taking a joke." Not a good sign. (Reply to this)

	virago 2003-12-10 08:13 pm UTC (link)
	lyrajane: If you want something to be taken as a joke, it's usually better to be funny. [tidy exposure of outdated "source material" follows] Mmmm-wah. That was nice. I wonder if More Pagan Than Thou will reply to that... (Reply to this)(Thread)

	smo 2003-12-10 08:23 pm UTC (link)
	Is there a law about that? If not, there should be. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	virago 2003-12-10 08:27 pm UTC (link)
	Yeah, maybe. Backpedaling in the "My unfounded slam about x was supposed to be a joke" style is definitely not an isolated incident, which annoys me, personally, quite a bit. Of course, there's snark, which is funny. It's a tough call. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	smo 2003-12-10 09:12 pm UTC (link)
	I meant about the Pagan-er than thou thing. Or [insert religion here]-er than thou in general. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	virago 2003-12-10 10:44 pm UTC (link)
	D'oh. I see now. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	eljuno 2003-12-10 08:19 pm UTC (link)
	Beat me to it! Yeah, I saw that quote come across, and I was mostly confused...but now the entire entry has taken on a definite train wreck quality...I just keep looking in to see how he's trying to defend himself NOW. Has orchydconstyne said anything else, yet? Why'd they think this was a good post for metaquotes? People...bleh. (Reply to this)

	fxh 2003-12-10 08:45 pm UTC (link)
	Someone might want to consider copying/pasting parts of the entry. I'll bet it'll be deleted as soon as the OP sees the reactions, and it'd be a shame to lose this wank. (Reply to this)(Thread)

thebratqueen
2003-12-10 08:54 pm UTC (link)

The original post in eriklebeau's journal only consists of the bit that's already been quoted. No comments to that post as of right now.

As for the two followup comments he's made in metaquotes:

Okay, it seems that I have to explain myself because people are incapable of taking a joke.

The Knights of Columbus are the self-proclaimed "Strong Right Arm of the Church" and acknowledge heavy-handed and ultra-conservative values and mores (to this day, only "good Catholic males over 18 years of age" are permitted to join -- with the definition of "good Catholic" to be determined by the current members).

Similarly, the Ku Klux Klan was also founded as a social club of "good Christian males" and also acknowledge heavy-handed and ultra-conservative values and mores.

Therefore, the point of the statement is that while statements like "Keep the Christ in Christmas" and "Celebrate Black History Month" are (generally) worthwhile and positive, one should consider the source and take into account that group's methods and motives for such a statement.

As a liberal non-Christian, I remain skeptical of the intent of this particular campaign by the KoC. This is an organization, after all, whose slogan has been "Make America Catholic" and published writings have said they will "force the propaganda of Protestants to cease," and will "lay the heavy hand of a Catholic state upon and crush the life out of Protestantism in America."

The first part of my statement was not intended to be anti-Catholic any more than the last part was intended to be racial. It was simply to denote that the two organizations (from an outside non-Christian perspective) are similar enough in their development and motives to make the statement suspect.

Various people then post to correct this statement, to which he later says:

You know, I have seen some of the nastiest, foulest, most inflammatory and hateful statements I can imagine (in my opinion, obviously) come across this group without the mass of members so much as batting an eye.

Okay, so people didn't find it amusing. That's your opinion. People found it in poor taste. That's also your opinion. If you must assume that the statement is "anti-Catholic" despite my clarification to the contrary (if anything, it is anti-KoC, NOT anti-Catholic in general) -- that's fine. But is it really necessary to sully this generally good-natured group with a lot of what the Bard would call "sound and fury, signifying nothing"?

It was my understanding that the POINT of this group was to offer statements that one found amusing that were posted in other people's journals. orchydconstyne obviously found the statement amusing. If you didn't, then that's fine. Move the fuck on and go to the next entry. It is not necessary to flame me (and especially not her!) because YOU didn't get the joke.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

thebratqueen
2003-12-10 08:59 pm UTC (link)

Wow, that was quick. I went to check for more comments and the post was deleted. Here were the replies to the first comment, fwiw:

annlarimer
2003-12-10 10:44 (link)
Okay, it seems that I have to explain myself because people are incapable of taking a joke.

Yes. That must be the reason you have to explain yourself.
(Reply to this) (Parent)

lyrajane
2003-12-10 10:52 (link)
If you want something to be taken as a joke, it's usually better to be funny.

I understand and appreciate that there are many problems with the current Catholic church and such arms as the Knights of Columbus. However, likening them to a hate group such as the Ku Klux Klan is (at best) inflammatory and ignorant.

Do you have a cite for those published quotes? Because to me, they sound much more like something attributed to them through anti-Catholic propaganda than anything like any reputible organization would put out in the modern era. While their web site doesn't directly speak on religious tolerance, this press release talks of a Knights of Columbus-sponsored concert to "commemorates the 25th anniversary of Pope John Paul II's election to the papacy and his interfaith outreach to Muslims, Jews and Christians." that doesn't sound to me like a group dedicated to "crush[ing] the life out of Protestantism in America."

I'm not Catholic myself, but I do loathe religious bigotry -- as should a Pagan like you.
(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

lyrajane
2003-12-10 11:10 (link)
Oh, look. here's a probable source.

Introduction:
Anti-Catholicism was not confined to fringe groups. One of the most vocal opponents of a Catholic presence in American politics was Thomas J. Heflin, the junior senator from Alabama, who delivered some of his most vicious speeches on the floor of the Senate. Heflin’s January 18, 1928, speech before his Senate colleagues blamed the defeat of 1924 Democratic presidential candidate John W. Davis on Roman Catholics (“Al Smith’s crowd”) who demanded—to Heflin’s outrage—that the party denounce the Klan.

...
From the speech:

The Knights of Columbus slogan,“ said Doctor Chapman, . . . ”is make America Catholic." Here they tell you in their book that they will force the propaganda of Protestants to cease, they will lay the heavy hand of a Catholic state upon you and crush the life out of Protestantism in America.

in other words, it's 80-year-old political propaganda that probably wasn't true then and certainly isn't true now, generated by a wing of the Democratic party who were upset because the Catholics were asking they denounce the Ku Klux Klan.

I'm sure the irony won't be lost.
(Reply to this) (Parent)

ladybretagne
2003-12-10 11:15 (link)
Last I checked, the Knights of Columbus didn't make a habit of hate crimes or killing people. Maybe a bit too conservative for some people's taste, but that's a big step between the two

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	fxh 2003-12-10 09:03 pm UTC (link)
	Wow. Your c/p was just in time! :D hands you best-timing-EVAR award (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	thebratqueen 2003-12-10 10:09 pm UTC (link)
	I lucked out and had it up in another window when it got deleted. 8) (Reply to this)(Parent)

	fairestcat 2003-12-10 09:19 pm UTC (link)
	Great Timing, Thanks. It must have been deleted just after I last looked at it. (Reply to this)(Parent)

fairestcat
2003-12-10 08:46 pm UTC (link)

eriklebeau's still trying to defend himself.

But is it really necessary to sully this generally good-natured group with a lot of what the Bard would call "sound and fury, signifying nothing"?

Um... Pot meet Kettle.

Then he ends with this doozy:

It was my understanding that the POINT of this group was to offer statements that one found amusing that were posted in other people's journals. orchydconstyne obviously found the statement amusing. If you didn't, then that's fine. Move the fuck on and go to the next entry. It is not necessary to flame me (and especially not her!) because YOU didn't get the joke.

So, he's allowed to make inflamatory and offensive comments and she's allowed to quote them, but if anyone calls them on it *they* are out of line? OK then.

Also, maybe I'm blind, but I haven't seen anyone flaming either of them, either in the community or in their own journals.

Saying they found the post offensive, yes. Flaming, no.

No one's even commented directly on the original post in eriklebeau's journal.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

	norabombay 2003-12-10 09:54 pm UTC (link)
	just icon loving the neil finn. Which song was that? (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	fairestcat 2003-12-10 10:43 pm UTC (link)
	The second verse of "Kare Kare" We left a little dust On his Persian rug We gathered up our clothes Got the washing done In a long-forgotten place Who'll be the first to run? I'm inordinately proud of myself for finding a Crowded House lyric you didn't recognize. G (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	norabombay 2003-12-10 10:56 pm UTC (link)
	You picked my weakest albumn. For whatever reason I've only listened to Together Alone 500 times, instead of the usual 2 or 3 thousand. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	kitty72885 2003-12-10 10:36 pm UTC (link)
	Oh, no. He did not just try to use Shakespeare to defend his idiocy. pets copy of Macbeth* protectively* (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	phosfate 2003-12-10 11:11 pm UTC (link)
	You said Macbeth! lightning strike! _owie. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	yadda 2003-12-11 03:58 am UTC (link)
	Forgets all her lines on stage Damn! (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	smo 2003-12-11 04:32 am UTC (link)
	Go outside, turn around three times and spit over your shoulder, and the theater gods will forgive your non-"Scottish Play"-saying self. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	yadda 2003-12-11 05:16 am UTC (link)
	Forgets to put props on prop table on way out of theater, loses all of them. Damn! I knew I shouldn't have picked a Lady Mac-, er, Lady The Scottish Play monologue for this year's recitation contest! (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	smo 2003-12-11 03:17 pm UTC (link)
	Out, out, damned monologue! (Reply to this)(Parent)

	kerikeri 2003-12-11 01:46 am UTC (link)
	I have to second the icon love. unashamed CH/Neil Finn fangirl (Reply to this)(Parent)

thebratqueen
2003-12-10 08:48 pm UTC (link)

Phooey, I was going to post it.

My favorite part is how he also persists in failing to see that not only was it not funny but the basic "A is to B as C is to ____" construction is totally flawed.

Oh, wait -it's not that his logic was flawed, it's that everyone else in the world who isn't him and orchydconstyne has no sense of humor. My bad!

(And there's got to be extra wank points for his second post where he quotes Shakespeare. Tell me someone's covered Improper Use of Bard in

jurisimprudence.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

	sagralisse 2003-12-10 09:46 pm UTC (link)
	I don't think we have a Prohibition Against Bard Abuse, so far. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	smo 2003-12-11 03:41 pm UTC (link)
	Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Shakespeare. It's what's for dinner. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	lurker32 2003-12-10 10:46 pm UTC (link)
	My favorite part is how he also persists in failing to see that not only was it not funny but the basic "A is to B as C is to ____" construction is totally flawed. ^----- What you said. Jeesh, if you're going to make snarky analogies, make ones that stand up properly. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	phosfate 2003-12-10 08:56 pm UTC (link)
	Crap. It's deleted. (Reply to this)(Thread)

	fxh 2003-12-10 09:04 pm UTC (link)
	thebratqueen has most of it pasted in the comments here. points above :-) (Reply to this)(Parent)

	eljuno 2003-12-10 09:21 pm UTC (link)
	The true sign of a wanker. Dammit... (Reply to this)(Parent)

	beccastareyes 2003-12-12 02:57 pm UTC (link)
	Please tell me someone has a collorary to Godwin's Law that covers this... I mean, generally comparing any group to the KKK will not go over well. But it's too much to expect common sense on the internet. (Reply to this)

	lots42 2003-12-14 01:23 am UTC (link)
	It's been deleted! Wow, I think that's the first time ever a Metaquotes post has been deleted. It's sad an entertaining at the same time, much like Carrot-Top (Reply to this)