On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 5:06 PM, Sai Emrys <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 6:32 AM, Adam Walker <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> Sai, I am sorry, but could you please stop with the casual
>> use/misuse/abuse of the sacred name?
> AFAICT, this is essentially the request "please obey my god's edicts
> because not doing so offends him, and therefore me".
> While I mean no offense, and have tried to be merely neutrally
> accurate in my descriptions, I will not obey the edicts/taboos of
> religions I do not hold. If I were, and behaved consistently without
> giving some special status to Judeo-Christianity, I would be
> effectively prevented from all behavior whatsoever. (Again:
> I think that respect does not demand obedience or even deference.
> Indeed, I think that either is deeply disrespectful in interactions
> with humans, at least, and I would hope that interacting with me at
> least people do not hesitate to tell me when I'm being irrational or
> stupid, and will tell me to piss off if I request something
> unreasonable. But I recognize that my very hackerly definition of
> 'respect' here is one that is probably not shared by all, particularly
> the more strongly religious or traditional folk on here.

I'm with you on that and my reply to a private e-mail from someone who
mentioned their reasoning for respecting the wishes of theists because
they may consider it rude or offensive:

"But that's a double-edged sword.  I find it rude and offensive for
people to force me to be untrue to my own nature and beliefs.  I don't
care if they choose *not* to use such a term, that's their way and
that's fine because it doesn't affect me but when they try to inflict
their beliefs upon me, they are asking me to give in to hypocrisy.
Again people just need to accept responsibility for themselves.
Honestly, that kind of attittude among theists only makes me more and
more contemptuous against religion, to the point where I've actually
increased my use of blaphemous language just to show my contempt.  I
live in the Bible Belt (and can't wait to get way) so I'm bombarded
with religious references on a ongoing basis."

> In any case...
> On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 12:07 PM, Tony Harris <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> And that, of course, is exactly why the list has the NCNC rule in the first
>> place.  I think the discussion is getting a bit closer than flirting at
>> points, so perhaps at least a pure focus on the technical would be called
>> for right about now.
> Agreed. I think we can and probably should continue this discussion
> without any reference to Christianity etc., as the particular
> real-world religions are really fairly incidental to what we want to
> get at as a conlanging question. Hopefully nobody will be offended
> that I continue to blithely ignore the taboos of some conreligion.

Oh so we have to give Christianity some special treatment again?
NCNC isn't to preveent discussion religion within the context of
semantics as we have been doing.  NCNC is there to stop people from
using the list as a soapbox to push their personal religious or
political philosophies.  The original post had to do with the
semantics surrounding the term "atheism", which inevitably means we
need to discuss different theist philosophies to understand what the
lack of theism is about.  Languages are reflections of their cultures,
and religion is a large part of many cultures so the subject is going
to pop up from time to time.  I don't see a problem with that as long
as it's kept on a technical level which it has here for the most part.