She wouldn't use a rosary. Children generally don't. A child of that age wouldn't have long prayers memorized, just something simple like this:

Guardian Angel Prayer

Angel of God, My Guardian Dear
to whom God's love commits me here.

Ever this day be at my side
to light and guard and rule and guide.

Amen.

Thanks! I asked some of my Catholic friends about the rosary, and they were like, "I don't know--it's up to you. You might!" I thought there was probably an actual rule about it. Silly vague catholics...

And the St. Anthony prayer works out well thematically--I can explain away why a girl that small would know it. Thanks!

Or-

You can use the kid's version:

"Tony, Tony come around, something's lost that can't be found."

Slightly more irreverent but more likely a kid would know it.

Oh--one more question: What's your LEAST favorite hymn? The most droning and boring hymn? Easily recognizable to churchgoers?

(I've gone to a couple of church services in the past months--but I don't know when they're getting "indie" on me with their hymns. Nor do I remember the names. Bad writer! Is should have brought a notebook with me..)

Not much in the way of hymns when I went, mostly at high mass and then the clouds of incense made you forget everything.

Ugh. Nicene creed. I remember them drilling it into our heads in Catholic school and having to say it every Sunday at mass.


Anytime I think of it, I think of a droning voice of all the bored people in church reciting it. Ugh.

Ha. Interesting reading all these beadsqueezer comments.

This will work quite well--although I actually think it's quite beautiful.

funny because it's never interesting reading your ignorant comments

I agree with Bella. That comment is just rude. I may have issues with many aspects of Catholicism, but it has shaped our history and our herstory and (therefore) is worthy of a certain amount of respect.

Hehe!

Love it!

I was raised Catholic and I was not offended.

Maggie, I don't want to be The Thing That Disagrees With You, but the Catholic Church perverted Christianity to its own ends. They VOTED on whether or not to brainwash people into believing that Jesus was the son of God.

Personal faith deserves respect. Giant, greedy, bloodthirsty, controlling, misogynistic institutions do not.

I have thought the word beadsqueezer was amusing ever since a Catholic told it to me.

But that person had humor in his heart and perspective in his head.

Loved your last paragraph especially.

While I own a few rosaries, I don't carry them around with me, so unless she had it in her purse and perhaps it belonged to her mother, I don't don't know why she'd use it, unless she was actually in a church praying a Novena.

My least favorite hymn is Holy God We Praise Thy Name...only because I heard it 1,000 times during my youth and the way the congregation sings it is not the way it is written.





And folks, let's not confuse the dogma of religion and the sins of human beings with the faith that billions of people around the globe share.

Belittling someone because you don't believe and don't know or care to know the importance that faith could have in their lives is pure arrogance and ignorance.

beadsqueezer

is that a word??

BTW - the 'bead' concept came way before Christianity/Catholocism.

But really, if that is a word, what does it mean, Gerri?
{Perhaps this qualifies for another 'DUH', but I'll take that chance!}.

I am sure that I am the last person anyone would expect to object to this comment, given how I feel about organized religion, but I do object to useless name calling.

Everyone belongs to a group that can have a derogatory name attached to it, but it never furthers the dialogue to use these terms.

All it does is get people's backs up so they don't listen anymore so if you have a point, make it.

I honestly think that what Gerri said is all there is to it. She heard the term from a Catholic friend and finds it hilarious. She saw a chance to use it, and did.

I obviously can't speak for Gerri, but having met her in person, I just don't think there is any "point" behind it.

I find comment after comment after comment deriding anyone who believes in God to be pointless, harsh, and unnecessary.

Maybe so, but regardless of what I hear when people refer to themselves and their own group, I still do not use those terms when referring to the group because a "in-term" isn't usually taken well by outsiders.

Also, I didn't mean using the term had a point, I meant that if you actually have a point, no one will listen.

It is kinda like the way I feel about burning the flag. I think it is an expression of freedom of speech, but it will stop the dialogue.

Personal faith deserves respect. EXACTLY.

I have major, major issues with certain aspects of Catholicism and most institutionalized religion. That doesn't means that I insult them.

I don't run around insulting Muslims, Islam, Taoists, Taoism, Wicca, Wiccans. I think it's just below the belt. I am entitled to assert that pov.

And yes, you are being The Thing That Disagrees With Me. I never said a single solitary word about whether or not I believed that Catholicism has been an entirely positive historical force ... and I most certainly have not divulged my opinions about Jesus, the Bible, or any of that. You seem to assume that my opinion somehow differs from yours on the First Council of Nicea.

Maggie, once again we are having a disagreement over what words mean. You said:

I may have issues with many aspects of Catholicism, but it has shaped our history and our herstory and (therefore) is worthy of a certain amount of respect.

That sentence means that you think Catholicism is worthy of a certain amount of respect. That's what I was disagreeing with. The Catholic Church itself has done more harm than good, and they don't deserve my respect.

Catholics, however, do.

You and I don't have to agree. I adore and respect you. I just want us to be clear on what we are disagreeing about. <3.

I am a math teacher, not a professional writer. I prefer not to argue semantics. This site is simply a source of amusement for me.

It is clear to me that you understood what I meant.

Maggie, that's not fair.

It's not semantics. I did NOT understand what you actually meant, all I have to go by is what you actually say.

I also don't know what I have ever said or done that you would immediately jump to the conclusion that I'm not being honest.

Jesus, people!

How is "beadsqueezer" belittling, rude or ignorant?

Next thing you know, Wisconsinites will be offended if you refer to them as a cheesehead.

Down with overtly sensitive pc bull shit.

(I apologize to any cattle that I may have offended).

I really don't want to stir things up, but I also have confess that I am somewhat confused at the reaction to that word, since just a few days ago everyone was perfectly happy to call the Duggars "lazy, selfish, greedy" and "ignorant" for living according to their religious beliefs.

Where are we drawing the line here?

Lazy, selfish and greedy are words with clearly defined meanings that speak directly to certain behaviors exhibited. There are plenty of people who profess to be Christians that do practice family planning.

Beadsqueezers is a term that directly applies to the members of a group, indiscriminately and regardless of the degree of their membership to the group and it is difficult to believe that it is meant as anything but a derogatory term.

So, it's okay to attack individuals for practicing their religion, but not groups?

And, by the way -- the Duggars do use the rhythm method. They are practicing birth control according to their beliefs. But that's another thread...

EDIT: I am not trying to stir up trouble, hurt anyone's feelings or start a fight. I honestly don't see the difference.

I have never heard the term beadsqueezer before, but it conjures up an image of one grasping to beads.

It's a physical descriptor.

Just like calling a "African American" black or negro. By the way, "negro" will be included on the 2010 census checklist, because some black people still self identify to the term.

The difference, for me, is that I don't find it an attack to use a physical descriptor when referring to a group of people or person.

Heh. I understand your difference. <3

I have to confess...I didn't much understand the hullaballoo--but then, I don't really know what it is to identify with a group aside from being a woman. But I imagine it's along the lines of calling someone from the middle east a towelhead. Is a towel innately a disgraceful object? No. But then, they don't exactly wear "towels" on their head, nor do Catholics exactly "squeeze beads." It's belittling--because a rosary carries more importance than that to those who use them.

One assumes. I don't know.

Though...I do think everyone could lighten up--just a little. It looked to me more like a playful comment than anything else. If Gerri had said, "All of these FUCKING BEADSQUEEZERS!" well, there would be some venom in that.

I myself have to admit I don't much "respect" religion or faith--or the lack thereof. But I like to respect PEOPLE--and people are comprised of ideas and opinions. So it's generally not nice to belittle their ideas and opinions....

But faith and religion on their own, as concepts and not attached to the people who value them? Meh. We all like to be real respectful of people's beliefs...but who here hasn't made a joke about scientology?

Let he who is without sin...;)

I didn't say you couldn't comment on groups. Not at all. But commenting on a group in a specific way to make some point is different than using a derogatory term assigned to a group. I also deplore the Catholic church's stance on birth control for creating the same problem we were talking about with the Duggars.

My point there was that having 19 children, regardless of the reason, is completely irresponsible in light of conditions of overpopulation in the world today.

The reason I thought the Duggars were lazy in their thinking and selfish is because they were making these choices solely on the basis of the fact that having baby after baby was proof that god forgave them for using bc. There is no vision in a choice like that.

I just found the remark, especially in light of the fact that we were trying to give out information so Samantha could round out a character, pointlessly insulting.

You identify with the group sometimes referred to as a skirt, a Dame, Doll, Chick, Chippy, Dorothy, and if you watched the Huxtables, a "Burger".

For the record here, my friend Vince who told me the word beadsqueezer, did not think it derogatory. He thought it was funny and just descriptive. I worked side by side with him for a number of years and always found him kind, helpful, intelligent and downright hilarious. To me the word is just a word but not derogatory.

I am reading a David Sedaris book and he describes trying to make snow people with his sisters in North Carolina but the snow was sparse and quick to melt. So when they rolled up the balls of snow, a lot of mud was included. They decided to call them Snow Negroes. I thought it funny but I wonder if it offends someone.

I think we need more humor in the world, thicker skin and less censorship.

But that's just me.

I am so grateful there are cool people like you in the world, Gerri.

<3

Thanks Blondie

Yes, beadsqueezers is just a word, and it was not the word in and of itself that was offensive, but the implied contempt behind it, as it was the latest in many derogatory comments that have been made.

You can call it censorship or pc bullshit or whatever your heart desires, but at the end of the day when you are offending people, that's on you, not the people you offend.

Well written.

I don't mean to start a fight, but actually, its not.

No one can make you feel anything.

For instance, I could have ignored this comment and went about my day knowing that in my world, it's not true and not caring what you think or say.

But instead, here I am... letting it bother me (ever so slightly) and responding to your post.

Now, imagine what CNN, Fox and MSNBC would do all day long if they did the same thing....

I agree with this. It's arrogant to assume that you know the intent behind what other people say -- you can't read their minds.

Words only have the power you give them.

Excuse me, but that's bullshit. When someone makes continual derisive comments, it's arrogant to assume their intent? Please. For someone who makes their living with words, surely YOU know every single one has meaning.

I do know that. And I think we disagree about whether or not the comments in question are deliberately derisive, or just evidence of a dry and irreverent wit.

You know, when I was 12 or 13 a kid at Junior High called me the Queen of the Wops.

He did it when he came into the library with his friends whenever I was working there.

Now the "word" wop is simply an acronym applied to Italians that means, "without papers."

In some ways, simply a factual statement of an immigrant without proper papers to be in the country.

But the implication is that Italians don't belong in this country since it became a generalized word applied to them indiscriminately. As such, with this connotation, it became an insult.

Since the kid was not Italian, I got pissed and cleaned his clock for him after school one day. (You could do that then because no one came back to school with a gun the next day.)

If someone said that to me now, I would just think they were stupid. But my feelings then and my feelings now are both legitimate.

Sure you can say people are over sensitive but given the fact that the comment was dropped in apropos of nothing, what is the everlovin' point?

And "my friend, the (insert name of group here) says this all the time" doesn't really work.

Josephine wrote: Sure you can say people are over sensitive but given the fact that the comment was dropped in apropos of nothing, what is the everlovin' point?

As I have speculated before, and Gerri herself explained, the point was simply to use a word she found funny.

And, yes. Words can hurt. But feelings are not facts. One of the stupidest things this society has ever done is turn its back on the concept of "sticks and stones" because instead of simply dismissing name-calling for the juvenile attempt to gain power over someone that it is, we created a whole bunch of helpless victims. "He called me a name and it damaged me!! Wah!!"

I was taught that words only have the power you give them, and that other people's opinions of you are not Truth with a capital 'T', and I have taught my children the same thing, rather than leave them at the mercy of every passing comment.

All very well and good and definitely in the category of how the world should be.

But feelings are facts, albeit very localized ones. It is a very big mistake to think that just because we are in the midst of a pc backlash there isn't any merit to the concept of psychological abuse. And that is mostly conducted with words.

Words do have power. I am surprised you, such a stickler for the exact meanings of words, has this stance. Yes, it is possible for people to take words and handle them in different ways but that doesn't mean words don't have connotations and implications and can be used to cause an effect.

You cannot, at one and the same time, say that you can only go by what people say and then dismiss something someone says just because it isn't having an effect on you.

Also, words do not only have the power we give them. They do not lie there in a sterile environment. They come from people and reflect attitudes. And those have to be dealt with in our relationships with people. So the words have power coming and going.

My main point is, if Gerri was really commenting on how it was interesting to read what Catholics had to say, why not just say Catholics? Why say beadsqueezers? I cannot believe thinking about using this term wouldn't have given someone pause.

My feeling is not one of insult, rather it is impatience for the careless use of a term that, at its best, could amuse, but at its worst, will offend to no earthly purpose.

So saying dyke for lesbian would be ok?

Or Fag?

Or Camel Jockey

Or Carpet Muncher

Or Gook

Or JAP

Or Kike

Or Niglet

Or Oreo

Or Pancake face

Or Yid

Give me a break, all of these names are disgusting, not because they are WORDS, but because they infer something, and that something is not anything good. Get over yourselves and have some decency to realize when you are offending someone else whether or not you meant to.

Thank you Josephine. Super sincerely, THANK YOU. And by using the words thank and you, I only mean how grateful I am that you are able to put words in those specific order and not hurt anyones feelings while doing so.

Edit: Especially to your last sentence. If only everyone was as "impatient" as you. I would be writing this response to any of those above mentioned slurs.

Samantha, I'm so sorry that this has taken over your thread. All you wanted was a simple answer to a simple question but you were not allowed that. This is my last post on this thread. Hopefully.

A sense of humor is a strange and wonderful thing. Sometimes strange, sometimes wonderful, sometimes both. Things or words, many words are real funny to me and things that I say are often apropos of nothing--except my own mind at the time or whatever I happen to be chuckling over.

Anyone who knows me would tell you this. I laugh a lot--daily. It is my life. I find the world amusing in order not to think how awful events can be.

Situational comedy is on my mind a lot. It is about common everyday occurrences that most people don't notice. I do. These occurrences produce pictures in my mind like paintings.

I sometimes verbalize them. Always have. Always will.

It is hard to explain a sense of humor.

Bella wrote: Give me a break, all of these names are disgusting, not because they are WORDS, but because they infer something, and that something is not anything good. Get over yourselves and have some decency to realize when you are offending someone else whether or not you meant to.

I need you to understand that I am not in favor of anyone using words that are specifically meant to hurt.

What I am objecting to is the knee-jerk over-reaction that people have to these words. Everyone can insist all they want that words have power, but don't you understand that the minute you allow yourself to be damaged by a casual comment you have given your own power to someone else?

Why is everybody defending their right to be a victim?

Josephine wrote: you cannot, at one and the same time, say that you can only go by what people say and then dismiss something someone says just because it isn't having an effect on you.

I'm not doing that. I read what everyone says and respond to the meaning of the words they choose.

All of you are up in arms about the intent that all of you have attached to the word Gerri used. She doesn't give it the same weight and meaning that you do. You have all decided that she meant it to be deliberately hurtful, and no matter how many times she explains herself, no one is listening.

Everybody is so sure that they are right about a CONCEPT they are being unfair to an actual human being, and that sucks.

I know. Anyone who actually knows you, also knows.

I think people are confused because you had a VERY hard time with Maggie on another thread recently over a single word, and now you are trying to say that words don't have as much meaning. Just seemed contradictory is all.

I personally think words have meaning only if you give them meaning. I've been called a JAP numerous times by people who don't know me and I understand that they are just small minded, ignorant individuals whom I ignore, so if anyone is offended, they have the right to make their voice heard, but they also need to figure out why they get offended by it.

Oh my goodness. Is there something wrong with the word dyke now?

Good grief, people.

No, no! I got my answers early in the thread, so it's all good.:) This is actually one of my favorite topics--because I don't have a hard stance on it, but just find it interesting: the power of a single word. It's why I like South Park--they take the topic of offensive words to task all of the time. I don't know if I agree with them all of the time, and a part of me gets a bit annoyed with Trey Parker and Matt Stone and their stance of EVERYTHING is a joke--but since everything comes back to how we communicate...well it's a good topic to explore. And it's interesting to see what happens if for a moment, you DON'T take something like a word so personally--if you do look at something sacred and view it as a joke. It's equally interesting if, for a moment, you do take it personally. If you take what a person says truly to heart.

You are welcome Bella.

Minxly, that is all I am saying.

And I am being perfectly consistent. Maggie and I were wrangling because she wrote a sentence that stated "A causes B". I disagreed, "A does not cause B". She got mad, rather than just admit that she hadn't said exactly what she meant to say.

This current wrangling isn't about the "meaning" of words. It's about the power they hold.

And the only person who can decide how much power a word has, is the person who hears it. They only have the weight we give them.

Which is your choice. Whether you take words to heart or not. That's all I'm sayin'.

EDIT: You and I have the same mindset about these sorts of issues -- the need to explore things, and to actually try to see it from another point of view. You are probably a very fine actress, because that openness will let you go places that other actors can't.

There are some things that mean too much to people to be joked about--they are too close to the bone. If anything is something to be poked fun at, and if those who believe in something you do not are open for ridicule (but it's just a joke, words only have the meaning you ascribe to them, blah blah), then what value does anything have?

I do not know Gerri in real life and yet I do have to question the motives of someone who repeatedly jabs at a subject under the guise of "humor," when it could so easily be interpreted as inflammatory, and has several times in the past.

I am clearly not the only one who doesn't see the humor in it.

A concept? In favor of a person?

Which person?

You are excusing Gerri but Bella and others were upset by this remark.

So, we are not arguing about a concept.

We are arguing about the effect that words can have, how they can hurt and how we are responsible for what the hell comes out of our mouths.

Gerri has explained where she got it from and why she thinks it is funny, but since so many people think it is not funny, how about a little thought?

And while she may laugh off the word dyke, I know there are plenty of people who wouldn't. Should they? Maybe. But I wouldn't dream of using it regularly because it is lazy and inflammatory TO NO GOOD PURPOSE.

The world is not held to just one standard and my basic point is using that word that way in light of past remarks definitely seems to have a point. And it is not to be funny.

I do not think this is the word. I think the word was "underearner."

Just like lesbianism is more than bull dykes and cunt-licking, so is Catholicism more than beadsqueezing.

What I am objecting to, the ONLY thing that I have been objecting to during this whole thread is the leap from "I am offended by this" to "You deliberately meant to offend me and you are bad."

And there is nothing on this planet so sacred that no one must ever joke about it. There is nothing that is not open to ridicule from people who don't hold the same beliefs. That's just reality.

As for meaning -- Theresa, no one can take away the meaning you bring to your beliefs. No matter who pokes fun at you or you church or your beliefs or anything else should have any effect on YOUR sense of meaning, and of the value they hold for you.

No. The word was "manifestation". Maggie said that underearning was a manifestation of a deeper problem. In my case, it's not. I tried to say so. That's all that was.

This is a gross oversimplification.

Words have more power than we let them have. They have power on their own.

I just got finished typing up a long list of interrogatories in a legal case. And after the client finishes answering them, the lawyer goes over them with a fine tooth comb to make sure that none of the words implies one tiny thing they don't want it to imply or gives the other side any ammo.

As a writer, you are trying to communicate with an unseen audience so you choose words to have a certain effect, to explain or guide or evoke certain feelings. If words only had the power the person hearing them, gave them, your job would be hopelessly difficult.

The reason you can succeed at all is because there is a consensus about meaning, both literal and figurative as well as the connotations and implications of certain words.

Instead of putting the burden for accepting something solely on the other person, I say it is just as legitimate for the speaker to be held to account for the effect their words can have.

Yes, it is. But Gerri never said it wasn't. She used a word that she found funny, and I am utterly fascinated by the fact that no one is willing to say, "Oh, okay. We didn't get that. Please don't use the word again unless you are trying to offend us."

As for meaning -- Theresa, no one can take away the meaning you bring to your beliefs. No matter who pokes fun at you or you church or your beliefs or anything else should have any effect on YOUR sense of meaning, and of the value they hold for you.

Oh, it doesn't, but I'm not going to sit by and not say something when the situation warrants it.

Josephine wrote: Instead of putting the burden for accepting something solely on the other person, I say it is just as legitimate for the speaker to be held to account for the effect their words can have.

And this is the heart of what I have been saying. Nowhere on this entire thread has anyone said "Gerri, whether you meant it or not, that word really offended me."

What I am arguing about here, is the right of the offended to automatically assume a word was MEANT to hurt. Just because you wouldn't use it carelessly doesn't mean anyone who does use it is a bigot or is intending to hurt.

It is the difference between "I am offended," and "You offended me" and that is NOT just semantics. It is a difference in mindset, and in how we see ourselves in the world, and in relationship to other people.

Yes

Ha Ha

Exactly right on all points

In case anyone wants to know, nothing wrong with dyke.

We claim it and own it. Maybe even use it to our advantage.

There is a comic strip called Dykes To Watch Out For.

Maybe it was once bad but Lesbians took it over, reclaimed it.

I find it difficult to believe that you are making a distinction between these two turns of a phrase.

Semantics only goes so far. What else has this entire thread been about except for the fact that people were offended by this remark, said by one person and one person only-a person who has made other offensive remarks toward Catholicism in the past.

I am sorry, but it is obvious there is no meeting of the minds on this.

However, I would like to point out, that in the entire thread about the Duggars, I never once used the term bible-bangers. I talked specifically about the issues involved because I was trying to build a body of evidence to support a point of view that would have been undermined if I had resorted to mudslinging terms such as this.

As far as funny, judge your audience if you really want to be funny.

This exactly proves the point.

The word dyke, among others, has been reappropriated by lesbians as a way to defuse the word and strip it of its insulting and hurtful meaning.

However, I am sure there are still a fair number for whom this word is still hurtful and insulting and I would never dream of using it to be "funny."

This type of mechanism is also part of identifying with the aggressor. In this case, using words that are commonly used by the majority group to insult the minority group and turning them around so they become a badge of honor in some way.

But, it is impossible to get away from the fact that these words are treated this way because of their power and there would be no need to take them back if they meant nothing.

Josephine wrote I find it difficult to believe that you are making a distinction between these two turns of phrase

You honestly don't see the difference between "I am offended" and "You offended me"? Are you kidding me?

One is a statement of personal fact. "I am offended".

"I am offended," implies that the speaker owns their feelings and is simply stating a fact about herself.

"You offended me," is an accusation and it implies that the other person should do something about it.

There is WORLD of difference between the two, and it is not just semantics, it's psychology.

And you are right. There is not going to be a meeting of minds on this, because the people who were offended can't just stop at "I am offended." No matter how many times Gerri explains herself, all I am seeing is "No, she was wrong. She is bad. We are right. Even if she didn't mean it, she should know better."

I have no patience with that kind of self-righteousness, I'm sorry.

I never thought it insulting or hurtful.

Why would it be?

Words, words, words. This has all been amazing to me.

I have bashed the organized Catholic religion before as have many of you who seem to be offended. Don't you see there is a difference here.

Are the offended ones upset that the Catholic religion is flawed but yet want to pretend it is a single word that is the culprit or what? Or I am the culprit? Do you think there are no Catholic people that I like?

If it wasn't insulting, there would have been no need to take it back.

And if we don't have words, what do we have? Grunts? Stick throwing?

Gerri, I do believe that the word "beadsqueezers" honestly offended Bella.

I think this thread would have been a lot shorter if she had just said "Gerri, I am offended by that word."

I hope that you would have said "I am sorry, I didn't mean to offend you."

Apparently, some people on here don't get your sense of humor and think that you hold them in contempt. Unfortunately, because they have taken that stance, they can't seem to back down and admit that they may have misjudged you.

That happens a LOT on AV. <3

Right. I get it.

I just hope you won't let them chase you away. I would miss you. A lot of people would.

As I said before, I am not personally offended by this remark.

And yet, somehow, I can still see that it is an offensive remark. And I think that offending people for no good reason is counter productive.

And the two phrases are not mutually exclusive.

Why is it essential for the offended to take all the responsibility?

And just because Gerri says she meant it as a joke, doesn't mean it was funny. And when that became apparent, she could have taken responsibility.

Josephine wrote: I think that offending people for no good reason is counterproductive.

That implies that Gerri knew the remark would offend, and she has stated more than once that she did not know that.

The two phrases are not mutually exclusive, but they are definitely different.

It is essential for offended people to take responsibility for their reaction so that they can decide what to let in and what to ignore. I never said that the person who offended should be let entirely off the hook, but the mindset here seems to be "No one should ever say anything that offends anyone, even by accident, and if they do they are bad."

Gerri has tried to explain herself, but unless she says "You are right, I meant to offend you because I am awful" no one will listen to her. And she's not going to say it, because she meant no harm.

Or, if Gerri had said, "I'm sorry."

You can't have it both ways.

If you are going to bash the organized religion because it is flawed then you need to present reasoned arguments and avoid inflammatory remarks.

Otherwise, you can never hope to convince anyone of anything.

Josephine, Bella's first remark to Gerri was: "funny because it's never interesting reading your ignorant comments"

What, in that sentence, should Gerri have apologized for? After that, everyone started running around lecturing about stuff, but Bella never once demanded an apology or even gave Gerri the benefit of the doubt.

No one said Gerri should apologize, they've all been too busy claiming she meant to offend and beating her up for it.

Brynne said:
It is essential for offended people to take responsibility for their reaction so that they can decide what to let in and what to ignore. I never said that the person who offended should be let entirely off the hook, but the mindset here seems to be "No one should ever say anything that offends anyone, even by accident, and if they do they are bad."

Gerri has tried to explain herself, but unless she says "You are right, I meant to offend you because I am awful" no one will listen to her. And she's not going to say it, because she meant no harm.


There has been no explanation except for the fact that the remark is to be excused based on the fact that she heard it from her friend who is Catholic.

And it was meant to be funny.

But the reason it is supposed to be funny is because it pokes fun at a group of people.

And if the people in question don't think it is funny, somehow it is their fault.

But heaven forbid someone take responsibility for the fact that they did, in fact, offend. All of a sudden their sensibilities mean more than anyone else's.

I completely disagree.

If you think this thread is a place to type all the reasoned arguments that organized religion is flawed, I find that hard to believe.

Number one, I can't type that much---being the one finger type.

Number two--many of us have problems with organized religion, right?

All I really need to know about how to live and what to do and how to be I learned in kindergarten. Wisdom was not at the top of the graduate school mountain, but there in the sand pile at school.
These are the things I learned:

* Share everything.
* Play fair.
* Don't hit people.
* Put things back where you found them.
* Clean up your own mess.
* Don't take things that aren't yours.
* Say you're sorry when you hurt somebody.
* Wash your hands before you eat.
* Flush.
* Warm cookies and cold milk are good for you.
* Live a balanced life - learn some and think some and draw and paint and sing and dance and play and work every day some.
* Take a nap every afternoon.
* When you go out in the world, watch out for traffic, hold hands and stick together.
* Be aware of wonder. Remember the little seed in the Styrofoam cup: the roots go down and the plant goes up and nobody really knows how or why, but we are all like that.
* Goldfish and hamsters and white mice and even the little seed in the Styrofoam cup - they all die. So do we.
* And then remember the Dick-and-Jane books and the first word you learned - the biggest word of all - LOOK.

Everything you need to know is in there somewhere. The Golden Rule and love and basic sanitation. Ecology and politics and equality and sane living.

Read the 7th point. It doesn't say, "apologize if you hurt somebody intentionally".

Working with beads for religious or meditative purposes spans much before Catholocism, Gerri.
So if it was The Catholic religion you were trying to make fun of I don't quite see how using that term would be offensive to them (duh??)? My impression was that you were merely trying to be funny in an offensive manner (perhaps without any ill intention but I don't really know you so can't judge) toward the people who use beads to furthur their practice.

Therefore, your above statement confuses me & leads me to ask what your real intention was.

I find that people normally try to be offensively funny when they don't have a full understanding of a particular situation & judge it prematurely.
Either way, to each their own.

Samantha,
sorry to see your post got so out of hand, but all such conversations are thought-provoking none-the-less!

You are completely twisting my words, Josephine. Gerri's explanation is exactly as you said. She heard it from a Catholic friend and thought it was funny. Yes, it pokes fun at one aspect of Catholic worship, but she did not say it to be mean.

And don't tell me that it is never appropriate to poke gentle fun -- your own second post on this thread states that you couldn't concentrate on much at a Catholic mass because of the "clouds of incense". That's poking fun.

Gerri never said anyone should excuse her for using the word, she was explaining her intent which was EXACTLY the same as yours when you mentioned the incense -- poking gentle fun.

If the people in question don't think it's funny, that's their choice, not their "fault".

I never said that Gerri's sensibilities are more important than anyone else's, or anything even close to that.

All I have said from the very beginning is that no one has the right to assume they can read another person's mind and know what they intended, and I stand by that.

Maybe not this thread, but here and there, wherever the threads may take us.

I present my reasoned arguments. I don't think there are a lot of short cuts seeing as how I am dealing mostly with people I only know online.

S, she has stated her intention at least four or five times. She was using a word she found funny to poke gentle fun.

And yes, these conversations are extremely revealing.

Aaah...I see, just that particular paragraph Gerri wrote confused me as I thought perhaps she was using it to poke fun of Catholocism, and I just didn't see how making fun of the bead users did that, since that practice had been around way prior.
Thanks.

It doesn't take a mind reader to see that when people were offended there was no apology.

If the intent was not there to be insulting, then dismissing people's feelings was intentional.

Also, Emily Post says:

5 Ways to Combat Rudeness

1. Don’t take it personally. Perhaps the offender is having a bad day.
2. Size up your annoyances. Is it worth it to make a fuss over something small, or is it a waste of your emotional time?
3. Set a good example. Rudeness begets rudeness. If you speak sharply to the bank teller, don’t be surprised if you get the same treatment in return.
4. Count to ten. When someone’s behavior makes you angry, take a few deep breaths and ask yourself, “Is it really worth blowing my stack over this?”
5. Laugh it off. If you can’t come up with a friendly joke, just chuckle and change the subject.

Piffle dee dee, what is one supposed to do with their righteous indignation, pray tell? lol

That is such an interesting piece of information! I thought Catholics invented the rosary.

When did anyone ask for an apology?

When did anyone even state that their particular feelings were hurt? All I see are lectures.

Isn't this what I have been saying for the past nine thousand posts?

Bella has stated REPEATEDLY over the course of SEVERAL months that statements that insult/denigrate Catholicism offend and hurt her.

Read a little higher? I believe I put another quote on here ... ?

Okay, this was fun for a while, but now, since this is my thread, I think I need to step in here and kindly ask that you all please shut the fuck up.

Bella doesn't like digs against Catholics

Gerri doesn't like P.C. bullshit

Brynne hates to see anything or anyone misconstrued.

Josephine hates to see problems go unresolved.


Maggie thinks we should all go back to kindergarten. And I think she's right.

Let's take a big breath and let it go. People will get offended and will offend. People will be insensitive, people will be overly sensitive. Things will get misconstrued. Problems will go unresolved.

I think we can generally agree to try and be nice in the future. In whatever way we can.

I agree with this.

I also want to make it clear that I was never angry or upset at any time during this exchange, and I am pretty sure that Josephine was not either. I think that one of the many things she and I agree on is that we are both willing to argue all night, which is one of the many reasons I love her. <3

I am sorry, Maggie. You're right about Bella. I can be very literal-minded and I was only referring to what was said on this particular post.