BobM wrote:I have no interest in flame wars. What I would like to know is why is snarkiness from one side acceptable, but even mild objection to it is not?
From a moderator's perspective, thank you for having no interest in a flame war. Those seldom yield benefit to anyone and tend to do lasting damage to the communities in which they happen.
From a practical perspective, I can offer the following observations, and I do not offer them as an excuse for "snarkiness" (not a "real" word, but a
very useful one, +1 on the inclusion in the lexicon):
- There are a plethora of religions around the planet, and not all of them see eye to eye.
- The ones that historically have caused the most discord have been middle-eastern religions.
- The ones that have caused the most bloodshed over the course of history have been the organised ones rather than individually-held notions of divinity.
- The ones that are still causing the most bloodshed and turmoil are those that have arisen from the middle-east.
That, having been said, it's worth noting that a good chunk of what we call "Western Culture" derives most of its belief-systems from middle-eastern religions, bringing with it a bit of tension before rational thought has a chance to take over. This brings us to the focus of the Skirt Cafe: the advocacy of getting skirted garments accepted by the general population in Western Civilisation -- and one of the "problems" we have is a single passage from a single chapter of the Old Testament of a founding middle-eastern religion.
Funnily enough, nobody ever bats an eyelash about the mixing of fibers when it comes to clothing -- but it's in there for the reading. However, a few years back quite the stink was made about Deuteronomy 22:5 when women fought for -- and won -- the right to wear trousers; here we go
again. Why is it different
now? Why is it alright for women in a Christian context to wear trousers but men not skirts? Where is the logic? (It goes without saying that trousers were likely virtually unknown in Biblical times in the middle-east.)
Finally, it looks like we are our own worst enemies -- and for no rational reason. Organised religions that base their theology on the Old Testament have the right to grouch about D. 22:5 but those who base theirs on the New Testament do
not, the Old having been supplanted by the
New several centuries ago.
As has oft been said, "It's just a piece of cloth". What possible difference can it make whether there's one hole for legs or two unless there's a compelling practical reason for it?