Log in

No account? Create an account

in a web of glass, pinned to the edges of vision

New word! (or not...)

I'd forgotten how often we saw Magritte

mucha mosaic

New word! (or not...)

Previous Entry Share Next Entry
bad grammar
So up the hill from my apartment building is a church. This church is OK by me, generally: seems to generally be an older congregation, composed of people who've been in the neighborhood forever. They usually aren't blaring a lot of noise at me even on Sundays, & the congregation (when I encounter them) are polite and friendly neighbors, who ask how my day is, invite me to join them, don't get pissy when I say no-thank-you...
Now, my landlady doesn't want me smoking anywhere near the building, so when I smoke, I generally go stand in front of the church, as most of the week nobody's there to be bothered by the smoke. Today, after reading some particularly repugnant 'Christian' nonsensical knee-jerk conservativism masquerading as logic on the intertubes, I went out for a smoke and noticed something about the building's signage, which I hadn't really had jump into my forebrain.

The sign refers to the church as 'C.O.G.I.C.' I'm assuming this stands for 'Church of God In Christ' (no, not in Christ that way, can't you people read anything without thinking of sex?).
However, my new word of the day is 'cogic'- definition, 'that paralogia to which the devout are prone which says that the word of God is infallibly true despite any evidence to the contrary'. Cogic is why there's a Creationism museum somewhere in Midwestistan. Cogic is why the 'Reverend' Phelps stands around with signs declaring that God hates a portion of His creation.
Please use 'cogic' in good health.

Actually, please don't use 'cogic' as a term for faith-based reasoning- see comments as to why.
  • Um, no.

    Yes, C.O.G.I.C. stands for the Church of God in Christ.

    The Church of God in Christ has nothing to do with Phelps.

    With your obvious access to the internet, you might want to find out which religious traditions you're insulting before you insult them.

    Right now, you just look mean-spirited and small-minded.
    • Re: Um, no.

      While 'lolgic' is out there, I found myself thinking there's need of a term that's specifically for crazy not-actually logic with a religious basis.
      I can understand finding this particular adaptation troubling, though- and thanks for speaking up. My use of the acronym as a word was not intended as a commentary on any particular church- but I can certainly see that it was interpreted thus. Apologies.
  • This is on COGIC's own website. Not sure that it changes anything, but it does put the church's stance on things into perspective.

    National Organization for Marriage Honors COGIC Presiding Bishop and Mother Willie Mae Rivers
    • Awesome. No wonder the folks next door seem like genuinely decent people!
  • I have carefully read the comments, and I do agree that there are nutbag religions out there, that perhaps deserve their own moniker.

    I also think that the apologists and moderates and 'normal' religious people are lovely people, but it does seem as if their existence makes the nutjobs feel exonerated in their words and deeds.

    May I suggest looking up the fascinating Christopher Hitchens, the quite lovely Richard Dawkins, and the Friendly Athiest blog. They are so much better than I at articulating a viewpoint that I know is controversial.

    • Dawkins, actually, I tend to discount because he's so insulting towards people of faith. Folks can believe in God or not- that's their decision to make, not mine to make for them. If it isn't harmful to anyone, who cares?

      I may go back to referring to such lunacy (i..e: GOD CREATED THE WORLD IN 4004 BC IN 6 DAYS OKAY THAT IS HOW IT IS THERE IS NO REASON TO THINK OTHERWISE) as 'Christianist', in the same sense that folks use 'Islamist' as a term for folks who are violating the tenets of Islam because they believe that violence and terror are the ways to practice your faith- regardless of what the Quran says.
      • I believe that my point (poorly stated, I must admit) is that it isn't harmless. There are many, many, many examples of faith being exceptionally harmful and outright poisonous.

        You, as a gay man, must be much more fully and acutely aware of this than I am. I am extremely lucky that I was able to marry the man I love, legally. The only reason that you are not is because it goes against a few people's delusions about a book written 6,000 years ago by goat herders.

        If we get to a point where religion is taken entirely out of the public and political sphere, then I might agree with you. But until then, I sympathize with Dawkin's point of view.

    • This. While there are relighions that are severely viler than others - and individual churches that are viler than their natgional organisations I do NOT support giving the individual church a pass on the vileness they support by being associated with the national/worldwide body that advocates prejudice and hatred.

      This church is happy to be associated with NOM. It is homophobic - and it doesn't get a pass for that and it doesn't get an excuse for that - and it's not "climbing on a cross" for protesting active homophobia, the support of homophobia and the excusing of homophobia

      There is far too much excusing of homophobia because it comes from religion.
      • Well said, sparkindarkness. I am tired of sitting on my hands and being polite while large groups of people in this country actively work to deny me my civil rights and to make me a second class citizen purely on the basis of how God made me. COGIC is one of those groups. I respect their right to worship. I just wish COGIC and groups like them and NOM would respect my right to live my life in peace.

        I attend an open minded church that works really hard to be a beacon of light and hope to my community. Their policy is to be inclusive of everyone regardless of race, sexual orientation, economic class, or any other thing that makes them 'different'. They are actively going into the city to give help to the poor, to provide aid and hope to addicts, and lend color and fresh food to impoverished neighborhoods. I don't think anyone would argue that's a bad thing.

        But they don't use religion as a bludgeon to hurt people. They practice what Jesus actually taught, which is to love your neighbor. These are Christians. And I refuse to tarnish them by referring to them by the same name as people who use the words of a tolerant man (whether he be God's son or not) as a reason to hate. They do not follow the philosophy they proclaim to love.

        Now, apply that to any group that calls itself a part of a philosophical movement that denies the true beliefs of their movement in order to pursue an agenda of hate. Call their true beliefs cogic. Call it insanity. Call it what you want. But I don't see how it's offensive to real Christians or Buddhists or any other religious group to call it by the name of a group that is full of hate such as COGIC.

        I don't hate religious people. I don't deny them their right to worship. But I am allowed to hate what small, bigoted groups do in in the name of good people and to encourage true adherents of faith based groups to step up and stop these same bigots from abusing their good name. And I am allowed to resent the actions of hate mongers when they are directly aimed at hurting me and a lot of people that I love.

        Nothing said here was anti-religion. It was anti-idiocy. And if you can't tell the difference, fightingwords, then I don't know how to explain it any better than this.
  • (scrolling back through flist, so apologies for coming to this post FAR too late)

    If you want a word for religious nutjobbery, I find 'funnymentalism' works.
Powered by LiveJournal.com