Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Take Up The Cross
Topic Started: Nov 24 2011, 04:34 AM (1,986 Views)
LWpianistin
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
They're not supposed to have a special place of worship. Neither are Christians.
And how are you today?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
Cheers
Larry
Nov 26 2011, 03:11 PM
You still haven't shown us where it says muslims in that, nor why muslims get a special place of worship yet you aren't pissing your panties over that.
Because he's citing the US rules. Its the Germans that set up the mosques.
In my defense, I was left unsupervised.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
LWpianistin
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
jon-nyc
Nov 26 2011, 04:12 PM
Larry
Nov 26 2011, 03:11 PM
You still haven't shown us where it says muslims in that, nor why muslims get a special place of worship yet you aren't pissing your panties over that.
Because he's citing the US rules. Its the Germans that set up the mosques.
I think he's ignoring that part...or maybe has just missed the other 4 times that's been mentioned in the thread.
And how are you today?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
Cheers
Apparently.
In my defense, I was left unsupervised.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dewey
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Quote:
 
I read it too


Apparently, not very closely.

Quote:
 
You still haven't shown us where it says muslims in that


Quote:
 
I saw it talking about that in the context of various Christian denominations, Judaism being the only nonChristian religion mentioned anywhere. From what I read it does not say a thing about having to accommodate muslims, hindus, or any other non Christian religion.


"b. The Establishment clause [of the Constitution] forbids any governmental authority from mandating a religion or way of prayer In the pluralistic religious setting of the military, Unit Ministry Teams (UMTs) provide opportunities for religious support (worship services, religious classes, prayers, and so forth) for individuals from ALL religious backgrounds."

...

"a. Provide equitable support for religious, spiritual, moral, and ethical activities of ALL personnel in their commands."

...

"(2) Chaplains will minister to the personnel of their unit and/or facilitate the free-exercise rights of ALL personnel, regardless of religious affilation of either the Chaplain or the unit member."

...

"h. Use of chapel facilities. ... Provisions will be made in the construction of the facility to accommodate the requirements of distinctive faith groups, such as: the Blessed Sacrament (Roman Catholic), segregated kosher kitchen/storage (Jewish), and ritual washing (Islamic). ... "

I could go on - but that, plus the very existence of Muslim chaplains in the armed forces, should be sufficient to any reasonably astute reader.

In fact, the Army has published a separate book, providing concise summaries of the beliefs of all of the many different religious faith traditions that the chaplain has to accommodate and provide for - and it includes a lot more than just the major faiths we've been discussing here. The book is Religious Requirements and Practices of Certain Selected Groups: A Handbook for Chaplains.

Quote:
 
nor why muslims get a special place of worship yet you aren't pissing your panties over that.


At this point, you can't possibly have missed the 800 times it's been pointed out in this thread that the mosques on the base are being operated by people other than the U.S. Army, who is a minority occupant of this German military base - that the U.S. has ONE multifaith chapel; I can only assume that you're intentionally ignoring the point to try to shore up your irrelevant anti-Muslim rant. It isn't working.

Now, your seething anti-Muslim bigotry aside...

Quote:
 
I saw it say that chaplains did not have to hold religious services that were opposed to his beliefs


Of course the military won't compel an individual chaplain to perform a religious service that is contrary to his or her own beliefs and conscience. But apparently, in the course of your reading, you missed a very important distinction in the manual - that the chaplain is not mandated to personally "conduct" services of different faith traditions himself or herself if their conscience didn't permit; but they do have an obligation as part of their mission and ministry to "provide for" the offering of those services they can't or won't "conduct" themselves. In case you missed it:

3-2 Chaplain as professional military religious leader

a. General. All chaplains provide for the nurture and practice of religious beliefs, traditions, and customs in a pluralistic environment to strengthen the spiritual lives of Soldiers and their Families. Chaplains conduct the religious programs and activities for the Command and provide professional advice and counsel on religious, moral, and ethical issues.

b. Roles and responsibilities
... (6) Chaplains will not be required to perform a religious role... in worship services command ceremonies, or other events, if doing so would be in variance with the tenets or practices of their faith. Chaplains will make every effort to provide for required ministrations which they cannot personally perform.

***

Sometimes, when there is no military member of the Unit Ministry Team available to perform those services, the chaplain accomplishes this through the use of independent contractors, as stipulated in section 14-2. You can go read that for yourself.

Quote:
 
From what I read it does not say a thing about having to accommodate muslims, hindus, or any other non Christian religion.


Then you'd better go back and demand a refund from your third grade teacher, because your reading comprehension skills aren't worth a tinker's dam.

Once again:

"Chaplains will minister to the personnel of their unit and/or facilitate the free-exercise rights of all personnel, regardless of religious affilation of either the Chaplain or the unit member."

"The chapel environment will be religiously neutral when the facility is not being used for scheduled worship. Portable religious symbols icons, or statures may be used within a chapel during times of religious worship. Symbols are to be moved or covered when not in use during services. Distinctive religious symbols, such as crosses, crucifixes, the Star of David, Menorah, and other religious symbols will not be affixed or displayed permanently on the chapel interior, exterior, or grounds. Permanent or fixed chapel furnishings, such as the altar, pulpit, lectern, or communion rail will be devoid of distinctive religious symbols."

That really isn't so hard to understand.









"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685.

"Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous

"Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011

I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
Quote:
 
and ritual washing (Islamic). ... "


I'm going to use this to show an example of how you pervert your argument for your own self interest. This is a more obvious example but only one of many much more subtle ways in which you make your case.

You are so desperate to find an example of this thing accommodating muslims that you have presented this as being for muslims, apparently in the hope that no one would catch you. Well, it didn't work, scooter. Not long ago you even told us about attending a Christian ritual washing. Now, I had pointed out that this thing discusses the various Christian denominations, and you are not stupid enough to miss the fact that the ritual washing being referred to in this is referring to CHRISTIAN RITUAL WASHING - yet you tried to portray it as accommodating islam.

Quote:
 
Now, your seething anti-Muslim bigotry aside...


Someone has to do it, God knows *you* don't have the balls to stand up against it. But it isn't bigotry, and it isn't anti-muslim. It's anti-islam - and I'll wear that badge proudly. If that makes me a bigot in the eyes of a wishy washy preacher who can't even stand up for his own God, so be it.

Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
LWpianistin
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
The ritual washing is referring to ANY religions that observe ritual washing. Oh, look - that means Christians AND Muslims. And Hindus, too, I think.
And how are you today?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
At the time this particular manual was written there were no muslims to accommodate in the US military. So no, it wasn't talking about muslims or hindus, it was talking about Christian ritual washing.

Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
LWpianistin
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
There have been so many manuals cited in this thread, I don't even know which year this is from. But, the term 'ritual washing' can be applied to religions other than Christianity, so, yes, it can be said that the manual is/was talking about muslims and hindus.
And how are you today?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
At the time this particular manual was written, there were no muslims or hindus in the US military to accommodate.

Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
LWpianistin
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
But there are now so they can have ritual washings too.

(There's a red squiggly line under 'washings'. Is 'washings' not a word?)
And how are you today?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dewey
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Larry, if you actually read the manual I linked to, you would see that what I posted was a direct, verbatim quote from the manual itself. I did not add the parenthetical words in that quote; that is what's printed in the actual manual. You can reference it by the paragraph number I cited. The fact that you didn't understand this, and accused me of adding the words in, only shows that you really didn't read the manual I linked to very closely at all. Instead - as all too often is the case - you're simply allowing your preconceived prejudices guide your mouth, or in this case, your fingers. In this accusation, what you managed to succeed in doing wasn't to show how I pervert facts to suit my own interests; rather, you only succeeded in showing how little you actually know what you're talking about.

Read it for yourself, Larry:

www.chapnet.army.mil/Documents/r165_1.pdf


Section 12-3 Religious Facilities; paragraph h. It's there, exactly the way I quoted it.

Apology accepted, scooter.




"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685.

"Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous

"Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011

I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dewey
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
And Larry, whichever manual you want to discuss, take note that Muslims have served in the American military since at least the Civil War, and possibly before that.

But again, you want to turn this into a "Muslim thing," since that's your cherished ignorant hatred du jour. As I've said before, and as I've shown repeatedly by citing Army regulations, the chaplain had no right to permanently affix a cross on display on the multifaith chapel mandated by army regs, which he was in charge of. And taking it down was proper by Constitution, by regulation, and by Jesus' command to humbly love our neighbor as we love ourselves, and to be the servant of all.

That's what this is all about - a perverted strand of Christianity that wants to demand special preference and treatment, contrary to both the principles of the nation as well as the core tenets of the Christian faith.

This =/= rocket science

"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685.

"Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous

"Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011

I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
I wish you'd stick with one manual instead of jumping around. I have been talking about the manual that existed before it got all pussified. We had been talking about how things worked BEFORE the PC crap got its evil foot in the door.

Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
Quote:
 
That's what this is all about - a perverted strand of Christianity that wants to demand special preference and treatment, contrary to both the principles of the nation as well as the core tenets of the Christian faith.


And this is what pisses me off, Dewey. For a claimed man of God to refer to soldiers who expressed disappointment over seeing something that gave them comfort removed as a "perverted strain of Christianity" is disgusting. I understand what the manual says, I understand that the cross violated those rules. What I'm saying is that those rules exist because of the kind of stupid politically correct, weak kneed, pussified CRAP that you have swallowed whole, and that before you pussies f*cked things up with your politically correct bullsh!t, none of this would have ever been an issue.

That ain't rocket science either, scooter. It's just the plain facts.

Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dewey
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Quote:
 
I understand what the manual says, I understand that the cross violated those rules. What I'm saying is that those rules exist because of the kind of stupid politically correct, weak kneed, pussified CRAP that you have swallowed whole, and that before you pussies f*cked things up with your politically correct bullsh!t, none of this would have ever been an issue.


OK, and when exactly do you think all that "stupid politically correct, weak kneed, pussified CRAP" crept into the chaplaincy? When did pussies fvck things up with politically correct bullsh!t?

Let me offer you a few relevant citations from the manual you've said you want to discuss - the old one that Jolly posted a link to, dating from 1952:

SECTION 1 - RELIGIOUS SERVICES AND MINISTRATIONS
4. General
a. Responsibility
"(4) The chaplain is morally obligated to provide for the religious needs of the entire command."

...

and... wait for it... wait for it...

"94. DISPLAY OF RELIGIOUS SYMBOLS
SR 210-10-50 directs that religious symbols and equipment having denominational significance be so installed that they may be removed or covered when not in use by the denomination or group concerned."

...

So you see, even in the 1950s, when the country was much less spiritually diverse, and the manual felt sufficiently comfortable using the Protestant term "denomination" routinely - even then, chaplains were tasked with providing for the religious worship and nurture of ALL of the soldiers in the chaplain's care, and all specifically sectarian religious symbols within the religious facilities had to be movable or covered when not in use by the specific "denomination or group."

So you aren't even really reading the sources you say you want to "stick to."

And whether you've noticed or not, or like it or not, this isn't 1952 any more. We are a more spiritually diverse nation, and that pluralistic religious environment translates into the military as well. The changes made to chaplains' regulations are reflective of that need to more readily address the legitimate spiritual needs of today's armed forces. We don't fight wars limited to weapons available in 1952, or with troops limited to the cultural makeup that existed in 1952, and we don't offer pastoral care with those limitations, either. The new regulations make the chaplains' work even more consistent with the Constitutional principles of our country. That's the simple reality of the situation.

Quote:
 
And this is what pisses me off, Dewey. For a claimed man of God to refer to soldiers who expressed disappointment over seeing something that gave them comfort removed as a "perverted strain of Christianity" is disgusting.


Then you'll just have to be disgusted - but as I said much earlier in this thread, any disgust you might feel is a purely subjective emotional thing that you need to deal with yourself.

For Christians who profess to be followers of Jesus Christ, who proclaimed and taught humility and servitude, and the love of others as you love yourself, to feel "outrage" (the term used in the article) when the cross that was inappropriately displayed on their multifaith chapel was removed, is a very perverse, significant lack of understanding of the faith they want to profess. They want a place of preference in a way that is not proper within the very teachings of that faith, or the Constitution and laws of the country that they've sworn to defend. Those who have been outraged by the removal of the cross - and that is entirely the point here, none of the other side issues - should genuinely commit themselves to a time of scripture reading and prayer, hopefully to see how inconsistent their reaction is with their professed Lord's teaching. I'd say that spending time with their chaplain would also help, but in this case, I'm not so sure. It sounds like he should be doing some serious soul searching himself.
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685.

"Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous

"Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011

I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
Quote:
 
SR 210-10-50 directs that religious symbols and equipment having denominational significance be so installed that they may be removed or covered when not in use by the denomination or group concerned."


Earlier I pointed out that before things were pussified by you politically correct types the "multifaith" element was simply denominational, and you argued that I was wrong. Now here you are arguing that I was right.

Quote:
 
Then you'll just have to be disgusted - but as I said much earlier in this thread, any disgust you might feel is a purely subjective emotional thing that you need to deal with yourself.

For Christians who profess to be followers of Jesus Christ, who proclaimed humility and servitude, and the love of others as you love yourself, to feel "outrage" (the term used in the article) when the cross that was inappropriately displayed on their multifaith chapel was removed, is a very perverse, significant lack of understanding of the faith they want to profess. They want a place of preference in a way that is not proper within the very teachings of that faith, or the Constitution and laws of the country that they've sworn to defend. Those who have been outraged by the removal of the cross - and that is entirely the point here, none of the other side issues - should genuinely commit themselves to a time of scripture reading and prayer, hopefully to see how inconsistent their reaction is with their professed Lord's teaching. I'd say that spending time with their chaplain would also help, but in this case, I'm not so sure. It sounds like he should be doing some serious soul searching himself.



No Dewey, you should be. I doubt very seriously those soldiers have a lot of time to sit around and think much about the finer details of the chaplain's manual, or military protocol. All they know is they're being f*cking shot at, they're wives and babies are thousands of miles away, they're scared, they're lonely, they're homesick, and seeing that cross brought comfort to them. They didn't march on the commander's tent and make demands, they simply said they were upset that it was gone.

Then you come along and call them perverted Christians, and want to argue your politically correct worldview and your bullsh!t theology, and you don't like it that I shoved it up your ass.

Deal with it.

Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dewey
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Quote:
 
Earlier I pointed out that before things were pussified by you politically correct types the "multifaith" element was simply denominational, and you argued that I was wrong. Now here you are arguing that I was right.


Care to back up and try that again?

"94. DISPLAY OF RELIGIOUS SYMBOLS
SR 210-10-50 directs that religious symbols and equipment having denominational significance be so installed that they may be removed or covered when not in use by the denomination or group concerned."

Quote:
 
I doubt very seriously those soldiers have a lot of time to sit around and think much about the finer details of the chaplain's manual, or military protocol.


They don't need to. All they need is to read their Bibles, and take Jesus' words to heart.

Quote:
 
All they know is they're being f*cking shot at, they're wives and babies are thousands of miles away, they're scared, they're lonely, they're homesick


Yes. It's the exact same way his Jewish, or Muslim, or Hindu, or Buddhist buddy sitting next to them in the Stryker APC feels. And that chapel is there to provide them with the exact same amount and kind of spiritual support and comfort. It does a dishonor to the service of those non-Christian soldiers, fighting for the principles of this country, when that cross is affixed to what is *their* base of worship also - they're told that their service, their values, their beliefs aren't as important as the Christian soldiers' is. You profess compassion for the Christian soldier facing those difficulties. You need to have the same degree of compassion for his fellow soldiers who follow a different religious faith.

Quote:
 
Deal with it.


Actually, I think I've been dealing more than adequately with my position in this discussion. So far, I've deflected your continual attempts at diverting the discussion into side issues, and I've shown my position to be correct based on the facts - a point which even you finally conceded a few posts ago. I've shown that you didn't actually read the regulations governing army chaplaincy that I linked to and cited, verbatim, and I've shown that you didn't even really read the older, obsolete regulations that you said you wanted to stick to, even though they prove you just as wrong as the new ones. I've shown that your claims that chaplains have only recently had to concern themselves with religious pluralism, and that this is just a bunch of political correctness run amok, is completely baseless and in fact has been army policy for more than 60 years. I've made it very clear to anyone reading this thread that you don't have a clue about what you're trying to argue.

You've now reached the point you usually do in these discussions - being so roundly, soundly proven wrong that now you'll simply claim to have beaten your opponent - in this case, claiming to have shoved it up my ass - and claim victory, when any average eight year old can see that your entire argument is ridiculous and you're just trying to slink away to argue, spewing your nonsense another day. Your methodology follows over and over again, like you're following a script. I'd actually think you were, but the evidence you've offered in this thread about your reading comprehension skills would tend to indicate that if it were an actual written script, you'd screw that up, too.

So yes, I'm dealing quite nicely with it, thanks. And on top of it all, I've succeeded in showing you to be a bigoted and ignorant ass while simultaneously finishing tomorrow's sermon. Multitasking at its best, I'd say.

"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685.

"Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous

"Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011

I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
Quote:
 
You've now reached the point you usually do in these discussions - being so roundly, soundly proven wrong that now you'll simply claim to have beaten your opponent


I don't see where you "beat me" at anything. I see you defending the very kind of bullsh!t thinking that caused me to get in the middle of this thread to start with. The "side issues" you talk about are THE issue that caused me to get into this thread, and you are such a pompous ass who is so smugly convinced he is now some sort of wise and all seeing "holy man" that you can't see anything except your own viewpoint.

Let me lay it out in simple terms. You insulted those who simply expressed sadness that a symbol that they felt brought comfort to them had been taken down. You insulted their religious faith. I told you that was disgusting. You are so pig headed though, that you cannot back away from your disgusting comment, and have actually heaped more onto it.

You sir, can kiss my red ass. I will continue to stand up when some PC pussy like you takes a potshot at soldiers who simply wished the symbol hadn't been taken down, and I will continue to stand up to your watered down, apostate theology. If you don't like that, tough. People like you do more harm than you do good. You think you are wise, but you are a fool.


Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
Dewey
Nov 26 2011, 09:15 PM
Yes. It's the exact same way his Jewish, or Muslim, or Hindu, or Buddhist buddy sitting next to them in the Stryker APC feels. And that chapel is there to provide them with the exact same amount and kind of spiritual support and comfort. It does a dishonor to the service of those non-Christian soldiers, fighting for the principles of this country, when that cross is affixed to what is *their* base of worship also - they're told that their service, their values, their beliefs aren't as important as the Christian soldiers' is. You profess compassion for the Christian soldier facing those difficulties. You need to have the same degree of compassion for his fellow soldiers who follow a different religious faith.
It's a lot easier for the Hindu soldiers getting shot at, since they get reincarnated and come back as Chuck Norris. The Muslims get to spend eternity with 72 virgins.

All the Christians have to look forward to is this thread, stretching into eternity.

No wonder they need comforting.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dewey
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Love you too, Larry. ^_^


And D'Oh, if the thread goes on for eternity, it won't be with any more of my help. My work here is done.
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685.

"Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous

"Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011

I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
Cheers
Dewey
Nov 26 2011, 07:33 PM
Apology accepted, scooter.
:lol2:
In my defense, I was left unsupervised.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
AndyD
Member Avatar
Senior Carp
Quote:
 

Then you'd better go back and demand a refund from your third grade teacher, because your reading comprehension skills aren't worth a tinker's dam.



Which one, the Hoover or...err the Boulder? :lol2:
Damn, I only know one US dam.
Every morning the soul is once again as good as new, and again one offers it to one's brothers & sisters in life.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dewey
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
AndyD
Nov 27 2011, 12:59 AM
Quote:
 

Then you'd better go back and demand a refund from your third grade teacher, because your reading comprehension skills aren't worth a tinker's dam.



Which one, the Hoover or...err the Boulder? :lol2:
Damn, I only know one US dam.
^_^

http://www.usingenglish.com/reference/idioms/not+worth+a+tinker%27s+dam.html
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685.

"Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous

"Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011

I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
George K
Member Avatar
Finally
Dewey
Nov 27 2011, 04:38 AM
<_<

http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-tin1.htm

Quote:
 
From David Halperin, Israel: Why the tinker in a tinker’s damn?

A There are two theories about this one. One points to the very low social status of tinkers, itinerant menders of pots and pans, and to their well-known tendency to include a swearword in every sentence. So to say that something “isn’t worth a tinker’s damn” is to say that it’s of no value at all, not worth even a moment’s consideration.

A more ingenious explanation was put forward in the latter part of the nineteenth century: when a tinker was soldering a pot, he would make a small wall out of bread dough around the place he was to flood with solder in order to stop it from spreading. After he had finished, he would naturally throw the dough away as being of no further use, so that “a tinker’s dam” was equally something of no value.

A century ago, the compilers of the First Edition of the Oxford English Dictionary were scornful of this attempt to make a simple matter more complicated, though it is still to be found in current works on phrase histories. It speaks to that part of us that wants to convert the mundane to the magical, to find something of mystery and interest in even the most ordinary of expressions.

You may gather that I consider the simpler story to be much the more likely. It is supported by variations such as tinker’s curse and tinker’s cuss.



http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/tinkers-damn.html
Quote:
 
There's some debate over whether this phrase should be tinker's dam - a small dam to hold solder, made by tinkers when mending pans, or tinker's damn - a tinker's curse, considered of little significance because tinkers were reputed to swear habitually.

If we go back to 1877, in the Practical Dictionary of Mechanics, Edward Knight puts forward this definition:

"Tinker's-dam - a wall of dough raised around a place which a plumber desires to flood with a coat of solder. The material can be but once used; being consequently thrown away as worthless."

That version of events has gone into popular folklore and many people believe it. After all, any definition written as early has 1877 has to be true doesn't it?

Knight may well have been a fine mechanic but there has to be some doubt about his standing as an etymologist. There is no corroborative evidence for his speculation and he seems to have fallen foul of the curse of folk etymologists - plausibility. If an ingenious story seems to neatly fit the bill then it must be true. Well, in this case, it isn't. The Victorian preference of 'dam' over 'damn' may also owe something to coyness over the use of a profanity in polite conversation.

That interpretation of the phrase was well enough accepted in Nevada in 1884 for the Reno Gazette to report its use in the defence of a Methodist preacher who was accused of the profanity of using the term 'tinker's dam':

"It isn't profane any more to say tinker's dam. The minister stated that a tinker's dam was a dam made by itinerant menders of tinware on a pewter plate to contain the solder".

The same view was expressed in the Fitchburg Sentinel newspaper in 1874.

The problem with that interpretation is that all those accounts ignore an earlier phrase - 'a tinker's curse' (or cuss), which exemplified the reputation tinkers had for habitual use of profanity. This example from John Mactaggart's The Scottish Gallovidian Encyclopedia, 1824, predates Knight's version in the popular language:

"A tinkler's curse she did na care what she did think or say."

In the Grant County Herald, Wisconsin, 1854, we have:

"There never was a book gotten up by authority and State pay, that was worth a tinker's cuss".

So, we can forget about plumbing. The earlier phrase simply migrated the short distance from curse to damn to give us the proper spelling of the phrase - tinker's damn.
A guide to GKSR: Click

"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... "
- Mik, 6/14/08


Nothing is as effective as homeopathy.

I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles.
- Klaus, 4/29/18
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Fully Featured & Customizable Free Forums
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply