Thread: Hug a homophobe? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=030840
Posted by Sipech (# 16870) on
:
There's an interesting article here in The Independent which came out of Justin Welby's recent appearance at Greenbelt.
Aside from objections in the quality of the journalism, the early reaction I've seen has not been good, but I rather agree with Welby.
If churches are not willing to embrace and welcome homophobes then we surely only reverse previous prejudices that LGBT people have suffered, rather than rid the church of prejudice.
If we adopt a "conform or leave" approach towards homophobes, then we are surely as lacking in love as those homophobes who have taken such an attitude against our LGBT brethren. It seems that the author of the piece (I'm not sure if he's a christian) isn't aware of 1 Corinthians 12:21-26 or the idea that, in that context, we treat our homophobic brethren as the less respectable members, therefore treating them with greater respect.
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on
:
Sipech -- I don't altogether disagree, but I trust you are sending the parallel message to the (far greater number of) churches that are themselves homophobic to "hug a GLTB person".
John
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Welby is dancing on the top of a very narrow fence, but it is still rubbish.
Embrace those who are actively affecting one's life? Who share responsibility in making people feel ashamed and harm themselves? Who drive more people away than they draw in?
Yes, Christians are called to love people despite their behaviour, but they are not called to accept, condone or enable that behaviour. And accept is what Welby is asking.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sipech:
If churches are not willing to embrace and welcome homophobes then we surely only reverse previous prejudices that LGBT people have suffered, rather than rid the church of prejudice.
It's not a reversal because the two reasons for rejection are not functionally equivalent.
You're just re-running a variation of the argument that says "if you argue for tolerance one of the things you must tolerate is intolerant people". And the argument doesn't logically hold up.
The desire to treat people nicely can only go so far, and the place it cannot go is to treat "people who don't treat others nicely" nicely. Why? Because it involves continuing to allow them to treat other members of the community badly, increasing the total number of people who are having a bad time in that community.
If 1 person inside the congregation is going to make 10 other people in the congregation miserable by their presence, then frankly the overall better course is to exclude that 1 person, reducing the number of unhappy people from 10 to 1.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
We're talking about cis-het fragility here. Oh the poor dears. This is about racism rather than homophobia, but the same general idea applies.
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
Actually, being nice or civil to people in general is not a problem. I just don't want to be "nice" and quiet when people are being intolerant. That means when a homophobic person is discussing the flower rota or bemoaning their teenager's problems with trig, I'm perfectly happy to discuss and sympathize. If they start spouting off on their prejudices, I'll challenge them -civilly. If they start trying to push through policies that hurt people, the claws come out.
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Actually, being nice or civil to people in general is not a problem. I just don't want to be "nice" and quiet when people are being intolerant. That means when a homophobic person is discussing the flower rota or bemoaning their teenager's problems with trig, I'm perfectly happy to discuss and sympathize. If they start spouting off on their prejudices, I'll challenge them -civilly. If they start trying to push through policies that hurt people, the claws come out.
Providing they have shoved their poisonous prejudices up their arse, I'll happily embrace them.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
We're talking about cis-het fragility here. Oh the poor dears. This is about racism rather than homophobia, but the same general idea applies.
That is superb.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
Good to see that someone has finally spotted the fatal flaw that has always existed in political correctness.
Yes, there was a large grain of truth in politically correct ideology. It has though done a disproportionate amount of damage by driving benign prejudice underground. Then, when your Donalds and Boris' come along, it emerges from the bunker and attaches itself to what it thinks is a kindred spirit.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
I think it's rather a good idea. Wouldn't it be wonderful if a stinker like Jensen (either of them) or any of that Gafcon crowd knew they couldn't set foot out of doors without the real chance of a big and prolonged and passionate hug from a gay person of their own sex? Can you imagine anything they'd hate more?
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
As a woman, if someone came up to me and hugged me I would regard it as an attempt at assault. Nor would I hesitate to express my displeasure. Can you say cold-cocking? I knew you could.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
I think the term "hug" is being used as a metaphor for accepting people who hold different points of view.
Posted by Bibaculus (# 18528) on
:
Poor journalism it is. Archbishop Welby wasn't saying that we should tolerate homophobes. I am sure he would say that bigotry and hatred have no place in the Church. What he seems to be saying, rather, is that there is a difference of views on the acceptability of same sex relationships, and those who believe that they are intrinsically wrong are part of the Church too.
I do think inclusiveness means including those with whom one disagrees. The Church of England is able to accommodate those who don't accept that women can be priests and those who do. It is able to accept those who believe in the real presence at Mass and those who have a Calvinist view of the Communion Service. As a gay, liberal Catholic Anglican I may wish that everyone in the CofE accepted gay relationships, women priests and a Catholic view of the Eucharist. And I hope that is the direction of travel. But really, it isn't all about me and what I want, is it?
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibaculus:
It is able to accept those who believe in the real presence at Mass and those who have a Calvinist view of the Communion Service.
The Calvinist view also affirms the real presence, though to be sure it is understood differently from the Catholic view. Nonetheless, it is a belief in the real presence.
/tangent
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
Good to see that someone has finally spotted the fatal flaw that has always existed in political correctness.
Yes, there was a large grain of truth in politically correct ideology. It has though done a disproportionate amount of damage by driving [QB]benign prejudice[QB] underground. Then, when your Donalds and Boris' come along, it emerges from the bunker and attaches itself to what it thinks is a kindred spirit.
And exactly which prejudices count as "benign"? I suspect you'd get different answers depending on whether you're on the giving or the receiving end of that prejudice.
- I don't want to live or work around [gay / black / Jewish] people, but it's not like I'm in favor of restricting their rights.
- I don't think [gay / black / Jewish] people should have exactly the same legal rights as me, but it's not like I want to make being [gay / black / Jewish] a crime.
- I think the state should throw the [faggots / niggers / kikes] in jail, but I'd draw the line at executing them.
- I think the state execute the [faggots / niggers / kikes], but I'd never do so myself. Vigilantism is wrong!
One of the advantages of such a continuum is that bigots can always point at the next lowest tier of bigotry and say "hey, I can't be prejudiced because I'm not as bad as those guys". In practical terms this definitional race to the bottom ends up meaning that unless you're a Klasman engaged in a lynching at that moment, you can't possibly be racist (for example).
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
One of the advantages of such a continuum is that bigots can always point at the next lowest tier of bigotry and say "hey, I can't be prejudiced because I'm not as bad as those guys". In practical terms this definitional race to the bottom ends up meaning that unless you're a Klasman engaged in a lynching at that moment, you can't possibly be racist (for example).
I get what you are saying, but still maintain that unless someone somewhere makes a distinction between what I call benign and malignant prejudice then we are forever trapped in a tension building situation.
Why not use the comparison of the current problem with Islam. I don't observe any sane or rational commentator saying the whole Muslim population should be condemned over the actions of a minority of cold blooded killers, accepting the fact there is doubtless latent anti-Western feeling in Muslim communities that thankfully never pupates into terrorist activity.
I sure Welby isn't advocating hugging individuals who verbally abuse or physically assault gay people, just those who have an ill-defined problem with it.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
I get what you are saying, but still maintain that unless someone somewhere makes a distinction between what I call benign and malignant prejudice then we are forever trapped in a tension building situation.
There is no such thing as benign prejudice in the sense you seem to mean.
First, benign =/= harmless.
Second, people like your racist Gran, who quietly mutters about "those" people may not cause direct harm. But they actively or tacitly support those who do. The vehemently homophobic or racist do not appear out of nowhere nor are they supported only be those equally rabid. The structure of hate is a pyramid, its base being the people you consider benign.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
Good to see that someone has finally spotted the fatal flaw that has always existed in political correctness.[/QB]
Bullshit. "I want to protect the oppressed" does not require "I want to protect the right of the oppressor to oppress the oppressed" to be consistent.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Yes, Christians are called to love people despite their behaviour, but they are not called to accept, condone or enable that behaviour. And accept is what Welby is asking.
I have a mixed reaction.
On the one hand, it's ridiculous to imply that the major problem here is pro-gay Christians failing to recognise anti-gay Christians as part of the Church. You'd think that far higher up the list of problems would be those parts of the Church who think it can't really be the church when there are gay Christians in it.
On the other: I believe it's established that the most reliable way of turning a homophobe into a non-homophobe is to have them interact with gay people in a friendly social setting. Denouncing homophobia is not nearly as effective.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
I dunno. If someone has my brother in a headlock and is punching his face, it may be true that he would like my brother if he just got to know him better. It might be true that he would be more open to the message of loving my brother if I could be welcoming and not condemning. But the fact remains he's punching my brother in the face.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
...if someone came up to me and hugged me I would regard it as an attempt at assault...
TBF, that's more or less what I had in mind for the Gafcon crowd and their merry chums.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
One of the advantages of such a continuum is that bigots can always point at the next lowest tier of bigotry and say "hey, I can't be prejudiced because I'm not as bad as those guys". In practical terms this definitional race to the bottom ends up meaning that unless you're a Klasman engaged in a lynching at that moment, you can't possibly be racist (for example).
I get what you are saying, but still maintain that unless someone somewhere makes a distinction between what I call benign and malignant prejudice then we are forever trapped in a tension building situation.
If you say so. I suggest that you be that "someone somewhere" and answer my question about where on my previous hierarchy the line between "benign" and "malignant" prejudice gets drawn.
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
Why not use the comparison of the current problem with Islam. I don't observe any sane or rational commentator saying the whole Muslim population should be condemned over the actions of a minority of cold blooded killers, accepting the fact there is doubtless latent anti-Western feeling in Muslim communities that thankfully never pupates into terrorist activity.
First off, while I won't make any judgements about sanity or rationality it should be noted that one of the two people who has a realistic chance of being the next President of the United States holds exactly that position. So while it may not be sane or rational by your judgement, it is a common enough position to hold.
Second, by framing something as "the current problem with Islam" implies that the problem is Islam (or Muslims). There was a similar difficulty America during the first half of the twentieth century with what was then referred to as "the Negro problem", implying that the Negros were the problem. Or way the term Judenfrage implies that the Jews are themselves questionable.
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
I sure Welby isn't advocating hugging individuals who verbally abuse or physically assault gay people, just those who have an ill-defined problem with it.
Why not? Isn't that what you call the "disproportionate amount of damage" done by political correctness? The injustice of social opprobrium from verbally abusing others? (The basis of political correctness, insofar as it was ever really a thing, seems to be not calling people by various slurs. Oh, the oppressive horror of it all!) Why can't the church embrace those willing to call others "fag" (or "nigger" or whatever their preferred hate may be) to their faces? Isn't that the whole argument advanced by this thread?
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
On the other: I believe it's established that the most reliable way of turning a homophobe into a non-homophobe is to have them interact with gay people in a friendly social setting. Denouncing homophobia is not nearly as effective.
It isn't either/or, but and.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
I don't know where the line between benign or malignant prejudice is but clearly there is one.
Take the problem recently highlighted by Corbyn regarding anti-semantic sentiment in the Labour Party. I'm guessing there was never any suggestion that those harbouring such feelings were advocates of the Holocaust.
Posted by Sipech (# 16870) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
I trust you are sending the parallel message to the (far greater number of) churches that are themselves homophobic to "hug a GLTB person".
Yes. Though as Rolyn rightly points out, "hug" is meant metaphorically. I'm not comfortable with enforced hugs. And of course, we must use more than words. quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
It's not a reversal because the two reasons for rejection are not functionally equivalent.
What do you mean by "functionally equivalent"? That's not what I said. My point was about ridding the church of hate, rather than making it acceptable to hate those who hate LGBT people. Wrong though I think they are, and much as I might seek to persuade them to change their views, it is more important to show them the love and acceptance that I wish they would show others. As the guy said... quote:
You're just re-running a variation of the argument that says "if you argue for tolerance one of the things you must tolerate is intolerant people". And the argument doesn't logically hold up.
No I'm not running that argument; you made a straw man. The overriding principle at play here is do to others as you would have them do to you. I don't know about you, but I want to be accepted and welcomed by the church as a whole, so therefore I am compelled to show others that same acceptance and welcome, even if they hold different views from me on things like sexuality.
Accepting the person is a very different thing from saying that their views are condoned or adopted into the church. It's important not to deliberately conflate them. I think it is possible to simultaneously condemn the hateful attitude whilst showing acceptance towards the person exhibiting hatred, though admittedly it is a delicate balance that requires careful handling from the elders and pastor.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sipech:
Accepting the person is a very different thing from saying that their views are condoned or adopted into the church. It's important not to deliberately conflate them. I think it is possible to simultaneously condemn the hateful attitude whilst showing acceptance towards the person exhibiting hatred, though admittedly it is a delicate balance that requires careful handling from the elders and pastor.
What, hate the sin while loving the sinner?
Have you any idea how tone-deaf that proposition sounds in this context?
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
I sure Welby isn't advocating hugging individuals who verbally abuse or physically assault gay people, just those who have an ill-defined problem with it.
Why not? Isn't that what you call the "disproportionate amount of damage" done by political correctness? The injustice of social opprobrium from verbally abusing others? (The basis of political correctness, insofar as it was ever really a thing, seems to be not calling people by various slurs. Oh, the oppressive horror of it all!) Why can't the church embrace those willing to call others "fag" (or "nigger" or whatever their preferred hate may be) to their faces? Isn't that the whole argument advanced by this thread?
The disproportionate amount of damage done by political correctness to whichI referred is illustrated by the very fact that a dangerous Maverick like trump is now close to parking his butt in the Whitehouse.
The term racist or homophobe or misogynist should never have been applied to those who only held benign attitudes. That in itself was a slur.
I personally wouldn't be happy sharing Communion with someone I knew openly used aggressive and hurtful language to minority groups on the basis of sexuality or race. However given we use the directive --'We all share in one body'-- I have to accept I am, theoretically, sharing Communion with those who have done a damn-site worse. But then that's a whole different bag of worms.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
Quote from our Communion format was meant to read ---'we all share in one bread'.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
The disproportionate amount of damage done by political correctness to whichI referred is illustrated by the very fact that a dangerous Maverick like trump is now close to parking his butt in the Whitehouse.
The term racist or homophobe or misogynist should never have been applied to those who only held benign attitudes. That in itself was a slur.
Yeah, not a fact but merely your supposition. Your words show absolutely no awareness of how the civil rights struggles actually happened nor the multiple issues which have created Trump. And Brexit for that matter.
Posted by Nicolemr (# 28) on
:
There is no such thing as "benign racism" or "benign anti-sematism" or "benign homophobia". The terms are oxymorons. They refer to hatred, you can't have benign hate.
Posted by Sipech (# 16870) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemr:
There is no such thing as "benign racism" or "benign anti-sematism" or "benign homophobia". The terms are oxymorons. They refer to hatred, you can't have benign hate.
But would you agree that there may be degrees?
Someone who is homophobic in the sense that they think gay people shouldn't have the same marriage rights as straight people seems less dangerous that someone who is homophobic in the sense of advocating the death sentence for anyone who is gay.
I would certainly advocate church discipline against those who display the latter, but not to go so far as the kind of thought police style of church discipline that orfeo is advocating whereby anyone who has less than 100% acceptance of LGBT people are themselves kicked out of the fellowship.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
Calling racism "racism" did not create racism.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sipech:
Someone who is homophobic in the sense that they think gay people shouldn't have the same marriage rights as straight people seems less dangerous that someone who is homophobic in the sense of advocating the death sentence for anyone who is gay.
Less dangerous in the same way that someone passing the ammunition is less dangerous than the person pulling the trigger.
Posted by Nicolemr (# 28) on
:
quote:
But would you agree that there may be degrees?
Certainly there may be degrees. Murder comes in degrees too; that doesn't mean there's any such thing as "benign murder". "Benign" means "gentle, kindly" according to where I just looked it up on google. No hatred is ever that. It is always caustic and harmful.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
I don't know where the line between benign or malignant prejudice is but clearly there is one.
If you don't know where it is, then "clearly" is certainly the wrong word for it.
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
Take the problem recently highlighted by Corbyn regarding anti-semantic sentiment in the Labour Party. I'm guessing there was never any suggestion that those harbouring such feelings were advocates of the Holocaust.
There's a major political movement against so-called 'grammar Nazis'? I know they can be annoying with their "that should be 'whom', not 'who'" and "I think you mean 'anti-semitic', not 'anti-semantic'", but it seems like a small point to get hung up on. What do they do, stage thesaurus burnings?
And yes, I'm getting into a semantic argument about the word "semantic". This thread wasn't nearly as recursive as it needed to be.
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
The disproportionate amount of damage done by political correctness to which I referred is illustrated by the very fact that a dangerous Maverick like trump is now close to parking his butt in the Whitehouse.
I've heard variations on this argument and it still seems counter-intuitive to claim that attaching social opprobrium to racism and race-baiting just leads to more racism and race-baiting. Which seems contradicted by most of American history. Donald Trump may have some racist views you consider "benign" but he's nowhere near as racist as Woodrow Wilson (to pick one example from an unfortunately far too large field). People may be distressed that form Ku Klux Klan Grand Dragon David Duke is mounting a credible campaign for the U.S. Senate, but if you go back more than half a century he'd just be considered a typical southern politician. Perhaps even a moderate when compared with Strom Thurmond or Theodore Bilbo.
The change here isn't that people will start electing racist (or other forms of hate) "Mavericks", it's that being racist is now seen as a "Maverick" position outside the political mainstream, not something so commonplace it bears no mentioning.
Please explain how making racism socially unacceptable actually encourages racism. Historically it seems to have done the opposite. I'd argue that making racism socially unacceptable has simply made us more aware of instances where it crosses our notice, rather than the "does a fish notice the water?" state that used to exist.
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
The term racist or homophobe or misogynist should never have been applied to those who only held benign attitudes. That in itself was a slur.
I guess we've found one of those lines between "benign" and "malignant" prejudice. Apparently having a 'No Coloreds' policy in your segregated rental properties falls on the "benign" side of the ledger, not even really counting as "racism". This gets back to my earlier complaint about how no one is considered a racist unless they're literally a Klansman. That seems like you're effectively defining racism out of existence.
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
I personally wouldn't be happy sharing Communion with someone I knew openly used aggressive and hurtful language to minority groups on the basis of sexuality or race.
Why not? Isn't that your whole gripe here, that the church (broadly defined) seems to no longer have room for the likes of Fred Phelps and Julius Streicher? You're unhappy to share communion with Streicher, you're unhappy with the idea that anyone would condemn Streicher, and you're unhappy with Streicher. Maybe this is just a situation where nothing is going to make you happy?
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
There's an interesting situation in one of Terry Pratchett's "Johnny Maxwell" children's books where the hero travels back in time to WWII with friends one of whom is a young black boy. In one scene a 1940s English woman manages to say just about every possible politically incorrect thing about the black buy, even calling him "Sambo" which you certainly wouldn't let anyone get away with nowadays. And though postwar myself, I remember people like that.
Yet via young Johnny, Pratchett, definitely no racist, doesn't tear the woman to shreds but gives her the benefit of the doubt - heftily. And as I read it, for all the wrong words that woman has a good heart and likes the boy; and to be blunt, I get the decided impression from the way she is portrayed that if the boy were threatened by a German paratrooper, she'd take the bullets for him. Which again, is how I remember many people of that era - all the wrong words maybe, but right where it mattered.
I rarely feel that modern politically correct people have that much care for the people they supposedly support. Indeed I've often felt such people have a rather abstract idea of the black/gay/disabled people they so vociferously 'speak for' and that really they're playing power games at the expense of other white people....
The situation doesn't seem as simple as some Shipmates here are suggesting....
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
I don't know where the line between benign or malignant prejudice is but clearly there is one.
If you don't know where it is, then "clearly" is certainly the wrong word for it.
Not supporting either Rolyn or Rolyn's argument at all, but don't agree with this.The fact that there is a line is often clear, but just where that line is not. In the case of homophobic or racial prejudice, the fact of there being benign and malign prejudice is not at all clear to me - it's all malign - and hence no line can be drawn.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
Steve, it's not 1940 anymore. She had an excuse. Nobody today does.
Posted by Nicolemr (# 28) on
:
She was also fictional.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
Racism is still endemic in many sub cultures. The British Police; the CofE; Queeensland (Australia) Aboriginal "rights;" USA - attitudes towards Native Cultures and Tribal Peoples (lower life expentantcy, incomes, higher likelihood of death by alcohol, misadventure)
Prevalence doesn't make it right, it should inspire us all to stop it whilst recognising none are innocent. Land of the free - but for whom? Discrimination Acts - but no one really bothers
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
Croesos @
I thank you for your in depth replies. It will take me a while to pick through the last one, and I might bow out anyway as I have no wish to enrage people or continually stir matters.
A world that would make me happy is one where no person suffers physical oppression of any kind,(from the actions of another). And that, as we are all painfully aware, is a scenario unlikely to ever be fulfilled. A world where no person ever suffers any internal emotional oppression is not possible in this realm.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemr:
There is no such thing as "benign racism" or "benign anti-sematism" or "benign homophobia". The terms are oxymorons. They refer to hatred, you can't have benign hate.
Sometimes racism isn't hate, it's ignorance. My MIL was overtly racist but I genuinely think she was ignorant, not hating. She was fearful of that which she didn't know. Fear rarely comes out well.
The nastiest dogs are the scared ones.
Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on
:
Some of these posts show a stunning lack of understanding of what it means to be an LGBT Christian. If you step away from the Anglican communion for a moment and consider people who've joined the Metropolitan Community Church - I was a member for a while - you will meet a group of people who have been kicked around by other Christians, often to the point of significant harm. Sure, one or two looked at what was on offer in other churches, and thought "nope don't fancy that" but most of them started out somewhere else. Some of them were hounded out of their churches. Some were disowned by their families and communities. They had people try to cast demons out of them. They had youth leaders refuse to work with them. They were pushed towards "ex-gay" therapy. Their sexuality was held up as a horror story before the church. Or they were used as a "useful idiot" to bash other gay people.
Even the people who didn't do these things openly made their disapproval known in a thousand little tiny ways. They gossiped and stared and for some reason didn't want to go to that birthday party or be left in the same room. They listened to other people who preach outrageous lies about the gays coming after your kids, and even if they didn't say those things themselves they didn't openly disagree either.
After a while you stop trusting people. What are they saying about you behind your back? Sure, she seems cool, but is she treating you as a pity case to try and save from yourself later? Which of the lies passed around in Christian circles do they believe? Do they believe those lies about YOU? Are these people going to abandon you if you find a partner, or are they going to casually invite only one of you to something? Why do they keep mentioning members of the opposite gender they think you might like? Who is actually a friend, and who is just playing nice in order to try and push conservative theology more effectively later?
In my case I had a rector who kept putting off the baptism I kept asking for. Over and over, with excuses that didn't quite make sense. It's entirely possible it had nothing whatever to do with my sexuality. But this is the key thing - at this point you don't know, because the standard operating procedure for the British homophobic Christian is quiet passive aggressive disapproval. If you think that does less harm you're wrong. You can become a leper within a Christian community without a single overtly homophobic remark said to you.
So you end up in MCC, and people say "How sad that gay people need their own church! Can't they just integrate? Why won't they play nicely." But here it is: there are a lot of people who don't want to play nicely with the church. LGBT Christians are not those people. We have turned the other cheek, then the rest of our face, then every part of ourselves, each time looking for a bit that wasn't already bruised. You will not find a more forgiving group of people than LGBT Christians, because the ones who can't forgive leave the faith.
We are still getting kicked around. We are still being driven out for our relationships. We still hear lies about LGBT people all the time. When we finally cry out "Stop hitting us!" there's always a response that goes "what about the homophobes! They have feelings too! Aren't their beliefs valid?"
When the other person's belief is that you're less good, less deserving of rights, a bit icky or weird, or a bit of a dangerous pervert, you can't muddle along with that perspective. You can't say "oh well, at least he doesn't think I'm a completely depraved disgusting pervert like that other guy does. He just thinks I'm a bit less good." There is no conversation to be had there. There isn't a give or take: "Funny how our views on things differ! I didn't think that Breaking Bad was a very good show, and it turns out that Ian over here likes me very much as a person but thinks I'm a danger to society because I fancy women."
There's nowhere to go. They won't budge. The only place you can go is to see their point of view. Then internalise it. Let it seep into you until you start to hate yourself. Too many gay people have been pushed into that path. I take the attempt to push others after them very very seriously, even if nobody gets called a faggot.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by mousethief
quote:
Steve, it's not 1940 anymore. She had an excuse. Nobody today does.
Yes I know - but I'm also thinking that the example found its way into the Pratchett story because he thought there was something relevant about that for today.
And yes the lady in the story is fictional - but again, the issue raised is not necessarily irrelevant; it may even show clearer when fictionally treated by an author like Terry.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
The nastiest dogs are the scared ones.
Should have thought the nastiest ones are those that sink their teeth into a person.
I have to conclude my late parents were racists and homophobes by today's standard. They were on the edge of the British Empire twilight generation. Those prejudices were never ever, to the whole of my knowledge, used to hurt/harm anyone either physically or emotionally.
Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
I have to conclude my late parents were racists and homophobes by today's standard. They were on the edge of the British Empire twilight generation. Those prejudices were never ever, to the whole of my knowledge, used to hurt/harm anyone either physically or emotionally.
The thing about racism is that it isn't a thing that someone decides to do to another person. Well, not for the most part. It's a set of biases and beliefs and automatic assumptions and intellectual short cuts that pervade through society and the actions and attitudes that occur as a result, and their effect on people of colour. That stuff was prevalent when your parents were around. It's prevalent now. The way you eliminate it is by examining the way that these biases have crept into your thinking and challenging that based on the evidence.
Did your parents hold racist attitudes? Almost certainly. So do people today. I'm not saying that they had any particular ill will towards anyone. I'm not saying they set out to make black people suffer. I am saying that the lack of intentionality (or even conscious choice) on their part, or anyone's part, does not mitigate the effects of racism on the people who've suffered as a result. And once again I can't get more upset about the feelings of white people who are horrified about being accused of racism, than I am about the effects of actual racism.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by mousethief
quote:
Steve, it's not 1940 anymore. She had an excuse. Nobody today does.
Yes I know - but I'm also thinking that the example found its way into the Pratchett story because he thought there was something relevant about that for today.
And yes the lady in the story is fictional - but again, the issue raised is not necessarily irrelevant; it may even show clearer when fictionally treated by an author like Terry.
Except that an author controls all circumstance for a predetermined outcome. Real life is generally more of a mess
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
Excellent post, Liopleurodon.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by lilBuddha
quote:
Except that an author controls all circumstance for a predetermined outcome. Real life is generally more of a mess
If you read the Pratchett original (in "Johnny and the Bomb") I think you'll find that the messiness of life was part of his point about the situation; and that therefore simply seeing the lady's words as 'racist' was a superficial reaction.
It is rather the point of Terry Pratchett that in his fantasies he makes real life points about our here-and-now world
Between on the one hand the lady in the story and real life people I've known like her, and on the other hand many 'politically correct' people I've known whose attitude does not seem to include actual care for the people they're supposedly supporting, or any likelihood that they would make sacrifices for the blacks/gays/disabled in question, I know who I'd choose, and likewise Terry Pratchett I think.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
And for what it's worth, I'm also broadly in agreement with Liopleurodon's post there.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Yet via young Johnny, Pratchett, definitely no racist, doesn't tear the woman to shreds but gives her the benefit of the doubt - heftily. And as I read it, for all the wrong words that woman has a good heart and likes the boy; and to be blunt, I get the decided impression from the way she is portrayed that if the boy were threatened by a German paratrooper, she'd take the bullets for him. Which again, is how I remember many people of that era - all the wrong words maybe, but right where it mattered.
There seems to be this strange notion that various bigots are all incredibly subtle and as long as they don't come right out and say it, no one will ever catch on that they believe Jews are all a bunch of greedy schemers, blacks are dangerous savages, and homosexuals are sexual predators.
Here's someone non-fictional [full version] opining on race, from not too long after the era you're so nostalgic about:
quote:
We invite the negro citizens of Alabama to work with us from his separate racial station . . . as we will work with him . . . to develop, to grow in individual freedom and enrichment. We want jobs and a good future for BOTH races . . . the tubercular and the infirm. This is the basic heritage of my religion, if which I make full practice . . . . for we are all the handiwork of God.
[The ellipses in the text are not edits, merely indicative of the speaker's halting style]
So all races are the handiwork of God and should pursue "individual freedom and enrichment" from their separate racial station. That Governor Wallace sure sounds like a nice fellow!
For some reason the black citizens of Alabama didn't show any kind of gratitude for Governor Wallace's kind and moderate words. It's almost as if they were picking up on some kind of subtext.
Posted by Net Spinster (# 16058) on
:
No benign racism though there may be somewhat benign racists; people who realize they hold racist (or equivalent) views and are working on changing them. For example a cake baker who is taken aback by being asked to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple but after thinking it over realizes "why not?" and does all the work he would do for any other couple.
I suspect the MCC is believed when it says it is welcoming to LGBT people because people know those saying it are those who are LGBT or allies. Other denominations often seem to convey 'we' who happen by default to be straight and cis welcome 'you other' who might be LGBT. Individual churches within those denominations will vary from being MCC like in welcome to being very far from that.
Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by lilBuddha
quote:
Except that an author controls all circumstance for a predetermined outcome. Real life is generally more of a mess
If you read the Pratchett original (in "Johnny and the Bomb") I think you'll find that the messiness of life was part of his point about the situation; and that therefore simply seeing the lady's words as 'racist' was a superficial reaction.
It is rather the point of Terry Pratchett that in his fantasies he makes real life points about our here-and-now world
Between on the one hand the lady in the story and real life people I've known like her, and on the other hand many 'politically correct' people I've known whose attitude does not seem to include actual care for the people they're supposedly supporting, or any likelihood that they would make sacrifices for the blacks/gays/disabled in question, I know who I'd choose, and likewise Terry Pratchett I think.
Sure, there are some lovely people who use the wrong words - generally older people whose vocabulary hasn't shifted with the times. And there are people who use all the correct terminology because they want people to think that they're great, not because they actually care, and sometimes their real attitudes are quite poisonous.
But there isn't some kind of weird system where you have to be in one or the other of these groups. Using the right words isn't enough to make you a good person. That doesn't mean that using the wrong words is okay.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Net Spinster:
No benign racism though there may be somewhat benign racists; people who realize they hold racist (or equivalent) views and are working on changing them. For example a cake baker who is taken aback by being asked to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple but after thinking it over realizes "why not?" and does all the work he would do for any other couple.
I'm reminded of something I saw on that Bookface thing last night - our first thoughts are a result of our conditioning. It's our second thoughts that reflect our conscious will.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
No, I won't be hugging a homophobe any time soon, and especially not one who claims to be Christian and/or "accepting God's plan", etc, etc, etc.
Rather I'll issue my usual challenge:
They believe that same-sex sexual attraction (as they quaintly put it) is down to personal choice: if that is really the case then surely so is bigotry; therefore, if it is reasonable to expect somone with said same-sex sexual attraction to be able to 'change' it is equally reasonable to expect someone who is a bigot and homophobe to change.
When they start to rant about the "Word of God" remind them that the only words in the Bible that we are told were actually written by the almighty are (a) those on the tablets of stone that Moses brought down from the mountain, and (b) the words that told Belshazzar he had been weighed in the balance and found wanting.
Hug - NEVER.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Liopleurodon
quote:
Sure, there are some lovely people who use the wrong words - generally older people whose vocabulary hasn't shifted with the times. And there are people who use all the correct terminology because they want people to think that they're great, not because they actually care, and sometimes their real attitudes are quite poisonous.
But there isn't some kind of weird system where you have to be in one or the other of these groups. Using the right words isn't enough to make you a good person. That doesn't mean that using the wrong words is okay.
No, of course you can be in other 'groups' as well - including obviously people whose 'racist' words represent real hatred, and people whose 'political correctness' represents real concern, if marred by some artificiality of approach. And I never intended to suggest otherwise; just to point out that the situation is not quite as 'black-and-white' (in a sense unconnected with race) as some Shipmates seemed to be suggesting.
Mind you, the comparison of race with sexuality and of racism with so-called 'homophobia' is not comparing like with like....
Posted by Nicolemr (# 28) on
:
quote:
Mind you, the comparison of race with sexuality and of racism with so-called 'homophobia' is not comparing like with like....
What is your rational for saying that?
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
And I never intended to suggest otherwise; just to point out that the situation is not quite as 'black-and-white' (in a sense unconnected with race) as some Shipmates seemed to be suggesting.
This "benign" you keep mentioning. Please explain.
quote:
Mind you, the comparison of race with sexuality and of racism with so-called 'homophobia' is not comparing like with like....
Also please explain this.
BTW, political correctness used a pejorative, is typically done so to allow the speaker to say nasty things.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
And I've not seen it used any other way than as a pejorative in 20 years at least.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
And I've not seen it used any other way than as a pejorative in 20 years at least.
I've never seen it used any other way than pejorative, but historically it supposedly has been. And as some SOF posters are more, erm, historic I phrased it that way.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
Political Correctness strikes me as the modern version of the 3 wise monkeys, popularised in the 17th C and a philosophy that dates back to 4th C China.
It is not without merit but sadly not the panacea to all humanity's ills, if it was we wouldn't be still here debating over it today.
Posted by Joesaphat (# 18493) on
:
I've never been able to grasp what people understand by political correctness when they say they do not like it. The license to speak their mind and be offensive, should they feel like it? What is it that they object to?
Posted by Joesaphat (# 18493) on
:
And for the record, most gay folks (over the age of thirty anyway) do hug homophobes on a daily basis. My family was not exactly a model of support when I came out, and a lot of other gay people's parents are also, for want of a better word, fairly 'unreconstructed,' and they do speak their minds.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Joesaphat:
I've never been able to grasp what people understand by political correctness when they say they do not like it. The license to speak their mind and be offensive, should they feel like it? What is it that they object to?
Sort of. Anyone can still do that, of course. What people objecting to "political correctness" seem to really want is to be able to use racist/sexist (and now homophobic) slurs and insults without suffering any kind of social opprobrium. In other words, not only do they want the "license to speak their mind and be offensive" (which they already have), they also want the license to control how others react to them.
Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on
:
There also seems to be a belief that others are being persistently disingenuous when we say that we avoid using these terms because we genuinely care about other people and want to avoid using language that they've said is upsetting to them. That's not really it, they say. We're just afraid! We're holding back on using the words, or expressing the prejudices that any right thinking person would express if they weren't under pressure! It's the same people who say they like Donald Trump because "he says what we were all thinking!" No, I wasn't thinking those things at all.
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
I sort of prefer seeing them coming. If someone who is at heart a sexist or a homophobe, I like being able to take them on. It is sort of creepy to only learn months after knowing someone that he really believes that women are the touchy-feely sex and lack logical skills, or that homosexuals freely choose their icky life-style.
[ 08. September 2016, 17:27: Message edited by: Lyda*Rose ]
Posted by Joesaphat (# 18493) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
I sort of prefer seeing them coming. If someone who is at heart a sexist or a homophobe, I like being able to take them on. It is sort of creepy to only learn months after knowing someone that he really believes that women are the touchy-feely sex and lack logical skills, or that homosexuals freely choose their icky life-style.
Me too, Lyda, if that's any comfort, especially in churchy circles. 'Oh welcome, you homosexual, we especially welcome people like you, we're all fallen, yada, yada, yada... but if you don't change or become a Vestal virgin, you won't inherit the Kingdom of God with us. St Paul said it.'
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sipech:
I would certainly advocate church discipline against those who display the latter, but not to go so far as the kind of thought police style of church discipline that orfeo is advocating whereby anyone who has less than 100% acceptance of LGBT people are themselves kicked out of the fellowship.
Where exactly does orfeo advocate that? I've discussed gay issues with him here for years (and from a changing position on my side) and have never known him to advocate anything remotely like 'thought police' church discipline.
Unless, of course, by "100% acceptance" you mean "treat with basic human decency". I guess he'd be in favour of that, but I suspect you mean being 100% affirming, which I don't think anyone is so optimistic as to hope for, let alone insist on.
I really don't think it's that difficult, in 99% of churches, to hold a view which amounts to: "Scripture and/or tradition appears to condemn homosexuality. I believe scripture and/or tradition to be authoritative. I'm unconvinced by revisionist arguments. Therefore I can't 100% affirm that homosexual conduct is consistent with Christian ethics. But I respect the integrity and good faith of Christians who have come to different conclusions."
I don't know many gay Christians who will scream "homophobe!" at the respectful difference of opinion represented by that position. I think you're more likely to find a Christian homophobe who views the above attitude as dangerously liberal than a gay Christian who thinks it hateful. Indeed, if you throw in a commitment to social and legal equality to accompany your ethical scepticism, you'll probably find that the gays will treat you as an ally, while the bigots will think you an apostate.
It really isn't the gay/affirming side that makes respectful differences of opinion difficult to hold.
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Joesaphat:
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
I sort of prefer seeing them coming. If someone who is at heart a sexist or a homophobe, I like being able to take them on. It is sort of creepy to only learn months after knowing someone that he really believes that women are the touchy-feely sex and lack logical skills, or that homosexuals freely choose their icky life-style.
Me too, Lyda, if that's any comfort, especially in churchy circles. 'Oh welcome, you homosexual, we especially welcome people like you, we're all fallen, yada, yada, yada... but if you don't change or become a Vestal virgin, you won't inherit the Kingdom of God with us. St Paul said it.'
Ew.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
Political correctness, whatever it is or isn't, pretty much became a busted flush in this Country once the extent of the Rotherham scandal became fully known.
This aside, if it has acted as a force the greater good then all well and good. There is though a possibility that it has become tangled with cultural power shifts along with the general speed of technological change, to create social tension.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
Political Correctness just means treating other people with dignity and respect in what you do and say. If that's a busted flush, then humanity is hopeless and we never should have boarded the Ark.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
Political correctness, whatever it is or isn't, pretty much became a busted flush in this Country once the extent of the Rotherham scandal became fully known.
This aside, if it has acted as a force the greater good then all well and good. There is though a possibility that it has become tangled with cultural power shifts along with the general speed of technological change, to create social tension.
Thing is there's nobody advocating this "political correctness". It's entirely a creation of the right as far as I can tell; I don't avoid the words nigger, wop and kike because I've learnt they're not "politically correct"; I avoid them because they're offensive and used to denigrate people.
What exactly is the "busted flush" to which you refer? The Rotherham business could have done with more "political correctness" in my view - if the authorities hadn't labelled working class white girls as slags then they wouldn't have ignored what was happening to them.
[ 09. September 2016, 09:54: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
When the extent of the exploitation became news one Daily had the front page headline -- "1500 Victims of Political Correctness'.
Therefore....busted insomuch as in Rotherham it emerged organised gangs, (mainly Asian males), were able to sytematically abuse 1500 minors, seemingly unhindered by ranks of fully paid-up social workers and police. This simply being down to the fact that any whistle blower would have been branded racist and risked losing their job.
It is the confidence in the discernment of 'speak evil' that has been busted.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
When the extent of the exploitation became news one Daily had the front page headline -- "1500 Victims of Political Correctness'.
Therefore....busted insomuch as in Rotherham it emerged organised gangs, (mainly Asian males), were able to sytematically abuse 1500 minors, seemingly unhindered by ranks of fully paid-up social workers and police. This simply being down to the fact that any whistle blower would have been branded racist and risked losing their job.
It is the confidence in the discernment of 'speak evil' that has been busted.
This doesn't seem very convincing given the large number of similar scandals (Catholic Church, BBC, various American police departments, etc.) that don't seem to fit your filter of political correctness. Rotherham seems more like a case of "OMG! Non-white men are using the same lackadaisical attitude towards sexual predators that was previously only used by white men! ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
"
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
When the extent of the exploitation became news one Daily had the front page headline -- "1500 Victims of Political Correctness'.
Therefore....busted insomuch as in Rotherham it emerged organised gangs, (mainly Asian males), were able to sytematically abuse 1500 minors, seemingly unhindered by ranks of fully paid-up social workers and police. This simply being down to the fact that any whistle blower would have been branded racist and risked losing their job.
It is the confidence in the discernment of 'speak evil' that has been busted.
This doesn't seem very convincing given the large number of similar scandals (Catholic Church, BBC, various American police departments, etc.) that don't seem to fit your filter of political correctness. Rotherham seems more like a case of "OMG! Non-white men are using the same lackadaisical attitude towards sexual predators that was previously only used by white men! "
That would be my interpretation of events. There have been enough recent cases of organisations not taking the claims of victims of abuse seriously to suggest that it has less to do with the Rotherham fuzz being all politically correct about Muslims and more to do with the Rotherham fuzz behaving like the fuzz does generally, and not taking accusations of sexual abuse seriously enough.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
When the extent of the exploitation became news one Daily had the front page headline -- "1500 Victims of Political Correctness'.
Therefore....busted insomuch as in Rotherham it emerged organised gangs, (mainly Asian males), were able to sytematically abuse 1500 minors, seemingly unhindered by ranks of fully paid-up social workers and police. This simply being down to the fact that any whistle blower would have been branded racist and risked losing their job.
Just as much it was about a perception that these were "bad girls" behaving as "bad girls" do and that, while they were below the age of consent, they were really choosing to do this. The major issue is society's bizarre and contradictory approach to teenage sexuality.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
When the extent of the exploitation became news one Daily had the front page headline -- "1500 Victims of Political Correctness'.
Therefore....busted insomuch as in Rotherham it emerged organised gangs, (mainly Asian males), were able to sytematically abuse 1500 minors, seemingly unhindered by ranks of fully paid-up social workers and police. This simply being down to the fact that any whistle blower would have been branded racist and risked losing their job.
It is the confidence in the discernment of 'speak evil' that has been busted.
The right-wing press has always had it in for anything they perceive as left wing. A narrative that blamed this on "political correctness" suited them down to the ground. I wonder they didn't manage to lever "'elf and safety gorn mad" in there as well. Press headlines prove precisely and exactly the square root of fuck all.
The fact is that grooming gangs have been prosecuted before and since Rotherham, some of them predominantly Asian, and no-one was accused of racism for investigating and bringing prosecutions. Therefore the idea that the police were afraid of this accusation and chose therefore to ignore abuse seems a darned sight less likely than the explanation that they didn't give a shit about people they labelled as "white trash".
[ 10. September 2016, 09:43: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
[missed edit window] to add - the press that wheeled out the "political correctness" narrative would also be the very same press that would buy into the idea that the girls concerned were "white trash"; they run story after story demonising the poor and benefit claimants. Of course they're going to go for the "left wing politically correct elite" bashing narrative, because that suits them.
It's incredibly naive to take a newspaper headline as indicative of anything.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Political correctness has nothing to do with silencing people and everything to do with expecting people to face consequences.
If you're willing to face the judgement of others each time you open your mouth, you're still free to speak.
What people who object to political correctness want, though, is to not be told that others regard their speech has horrible. It's THEY that want silence. They not only want to speak, they want to speak to an audience that just has to sit there and take it.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Political correctness has nothing to do with silencing people and everything to do with expecting people to face consequences.
If you're willing to face the judgement of others each time you open your mouth, you're still free to speak.
People have felt themselves to be silenced by this invisible thing political correctness. The judgement aspect has panned out into idea that someone who simply mouths disapproval is to be counted alongside a person who carries out assaults.
PC may well have served a purpose by confronting people with their inner racist or inner homophobe, it has also no doubt helped suppress casual expressions of the same. My concern is that it has outlived it's usefulness.
Why else is Welby suggesting that homophobes should be hugged? He obviously thinks you can't reach inside their heads and rewire their brains. Or are we now so confused as to what a homophobe actually is no one even knows what he's on about .
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on
:
There in an interpretation of Christ's instruction to turn the other cheek that feels relevant here.
I am quite prepared to hug a homophobe on one strict condition: before the hug takes place, they must have acknowledged our equality before God. The peace of Christ then exists between us, whatever else may exist. However, without that acknowledgement, no hug will take place, and I'm not immediately sure how the acknowledgment could happen.
The point about turning the other cheek is, according to this interpretation, that it requires the slapper to use their open hand, and thus acknowledge equality of status with the slapped. The back of the hand connotes the superiority of the slapper.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
rolyn, carrying out assaults is obviously worse. But those who think it but do not act are tacitly, and sometimes actively, supporting those who do.
Welby is trying to please everyone. ISTM, it is bog standard political speech.
Thunderbunk, I don't agree with that interpretation of the other cheek. Buddhists do the sidestep there as well, but IMO the uncomfortable truth is that both Jesus and Buddha advocate extreme pacifism.
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Thunderbunk, I don't agree with that interpretation of the other cheek. Buddhists do the sidestep there as well, but IMO the uncomfortable truth is that both Jesus and Buddha advocate extreme pacifism.
I'm not sure I do either in its context, but I maintain that I shan't be hugging anyone who doesn't acknowledge our equal humanity. Without cant.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Thunderbunk, I don't agree with that interpretation of the other cheek. Buddhists do the sidestep there as well, but IMO the uncomfortable truth is that both Jesus and Buddha advocate extreme pacifism.
I'm not sure I do either in its context, but I maintain that I shan't be hugging anyone who doesn't acknowledge our equal humanity. Without cant.
I feel you there, I won't either. Though, if I feel there is a chance of their understanding, I try to be gentler about it than I used to be.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
And I never intended to suggest otherwise; just to point out that the situation is not quite as 'black-and-white' (in a sense unconnected with race) as some Shipmates seemed to be suggesting.
This "benign" you keep mentioning. Please explain.
quote:
Mind you, the comparison of race with sexuality and of racism with so-called 'homophobia' is not comparing like with like....
Also please explain this.
BTW, political correctness used a pejorative, is typically done so to allow the speaker to say nasty things.
Just got back to this thread after a busy few days. First off, I don't recall directly using the word 'benign' myself, though others did - but given said busy days, feel free to correct my memory.
Second, the race/sexuality - racism/homophobia comparison requires more time than I've got right now but I will come back to it. Ditto l'organist's challenge which raises interesting but I think ultimately fallacious issues.
Third, yes ideally 'political correctness' would just be about treating people decently - but in a world where "All have sinned and come short of the glory of God" there are more than a few people who go rather beyond that in nasty and coercive ways on their own part, and/or practice it very one-sidedly. I object to such usage of 'political correctness', and prefer to deal with simple correctness.
On a basis of such simple correctness, whether what I say is 'nasty' basically depends on whether or not it is true. Just because you don't like it doesn't necessarily mean it is truly 'nasty'.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
The problem some Christians have is they think their homophobia is TRUTH™ and should be imposed on others.
Nasty is as nasty does, even if one shunts the responsibility heavenward.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Third, yes ideally 'political correctness' would just be about treating people decently - but in a world where "All have sinned and come short of the glory of God" there are more than a few people who go rather beyond that in nasty and coercive ways on their own part, and/or practice it very one-sidedly. I object to such usage of 'political correctness', and prefer to deal with simple correctness.
I, too, object to calling that "political correctness." That is what you meant by saying you objected to such usage, right?
(of course I object to the term entirely because its purpose is to serve as a club to hit those who call out racism and other evil attitudes)
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
Taking a step WAAAAYYYYY back--it seems to me that several people are saying "I won't welcome a sinner until they repent of their sinfulness, or at least admit they are wrong."
Should I refuse to show mercy and love to a racist until she admits that my marriage is just as valid as her own?
If so, it ain't gonna happen in this life.
I think Jesus expects more of us.
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Taking a step WAAAAYYYYY back--it seems to me that several people are saying "I won't welcome a sinner until they repent of their sinfulness, or at least admit they are wrong."
Should I refuse to show mercy and love to a racist until she admits that my marriage is just as valid as her own?
If so, it ain't gonna happen in this life.
I think Jesus expects more of us.
OK, so what do you think is the point? Is it a gesture to get people off balance? Is it a marketing exercise? How much mutual labelling is acceptable?
It's also a really odd thing for the ABC to say after all the work that has gone on with the C of E on the subject, through the shared conversations. A hug would make a good opening gesture but we're way beyond that.
I'd want to know at least the options for next move before hugging.
[ 11. September 2016, 16:28: Message edited by: ThunderBunk ]
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Taking a step WAAAAYYYYY back--it seems to me that several people are saying "I won't welcome a sinner until they repent of their sinfulness, or at least admit they are wrong."
How about the sinner admitting that they might be wrong? That they should be more inclusive because that is something that most can agree Jesus would be? That the second-class citizen rubbish they are currently pedaling doesn't fit Jesus' model of acceptance?
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
I think it is simple, LC. Why should LGBT+ Christians unreservedly welcome homophobic Christians when they do not do the same in return?
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Political correctness has nothing to do with silencing people and everything to do with expecting people to face consequences.
If you're willing to face the judgement of others each time you open your mouth, you're still free to speak.
People have felt themselves to be silenced by this invisible thing political correctness. The judgement aspect has panned out into idea that someone who simply mouths disapproval is to be counted alongside a person who carries out assaults.
PC may well have served a purpose by confronting people with their inner racist or inner homophobe, it has also no doubt helped suppress casual expressions of the same. My concern is that it has outlived it's usefulness.
Could you expand on this? Are you saying that applying social opprobrium to racism and homophobia is unnecessary now because there's no more racism or homophobia in the world, or just that there should be more racist and homophobic slurs being used by people?
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Taking a step WAAAAYYYYY back--it seems to me that several people are saying "I won't welcome a sinner until they repent of their sinfulness, or at least admit they are wrong."
Should I refuse to show mercy and love to a racist until she admits that my marriage is just as valid as her own?
If so, it ain't gonna happen in this life.
I think Jesus expects more of us.
How many more young gay men have to commit suicide before Jesus' expectations are met? We're not talking about forgiving someone who backed into your car or tore up your begonias. We're talking about people who by their hate drive people to suicide.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
This is precisely what I'm driving at. Did you think carrying the cross meant forgiving someone for tearing up your begonias?
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
I think carrying the cross means carrying MY cross. Not carrying someone else's cross. Or speaking forgiveness on behalf of someone else. (Some other human, obviously.) It would be vacuous for me to say, to a homophobe, "I forgive you" when they haven't done me personally any harm, and presumptuous to say "Mr. Landers forgives you for the part you played in his son's suicide."
And let's go back to my analogy above. When Bob has your brother in a headlock and is pummeling his face, is "I forgive you for pummeling my brother's face, Bob" going to help either my brother or Bob? It harms my brother by giving Bob the impression that he doesn't have to stop sinning, and can therefore go on pummeling my brother's face. And it hurts Bob for the same reason.
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
This is precisely what I'm driving at. Did you think carrying the cross meant forgiving someone for tearing up your begonias?
Are you suggesting that gay Christians are in general failing in the duty to be gracious and forgiving more than the rest of us are? That seems unlikely to me.
In the UK, in the very recent past, explicitly homophobic petitions were circulated in mainstream churches (and, shamefully, obtained widespread support). I'm not aware of any comparable outpouring of hostility from gay Christians. This is not a conflict with equal fault on both sides.
So while I certainly agree with you that gay Christians share the general obligation to be forgiving, and also agree that the Christian standard for forgiveness is a supernatural one, impossible to achieve without God's grace, it seems perverse to make a big thing of the call to gay Christians to love their enemies (when that side has, by human standards, generally conducted itself with quite phenomenal forbearance) rather than mention the behaviour of the homophobes (who have acted and continue to act with open, unashamed and slanderous contempt).
Homophobes aren't being run out of the Church. Or even made to feel particularly uncomfortable. It's possible, even commonplace, for people to openly oppose equal rights for gay people and be genuinely surprised and offended if they are accused of homophobia - that's how unchallenged Christian homophobia is. Calling for greater tolerance of homophobia is at best misguided, and at worst odious.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by lilBuddha;
quote:
The problem some Christians have is they think their homophobia is TRUTH™ and should be imposed on others.
Taking those two points in reverse;
My kind of Christian does NOT believe in imposing our ideas on others - only in persuasion that people should join us and accept our positions voluntarily. I'm just as opposed as you are to the Christians who believe it to be their job to use state law to discriminate against people of other beliefs. In Peter's words we are not to be 'allotriepiskopoi' bossily managing other people's affairs. If the state wants to allow same sex marriage, it can; if it wants to insist that I accept that as right and proper, they go too far.
Naturally I believe that the biblical teaching on sexuality is the 'TRUTH™'. Why shouldn't I? Why should I be forced to accept an alternative based on essentially atheist/mechanistic/determinist ideas which I find inhumane? Do note that the biblical view while not agreeing with the usual 'gay lobby' representation of things, also doesn't entirely agree with the typical rhetoric of the 'Religious Right' and similar bodies.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Naturally I believe that the biblical teaching on sexuality is the 'TRUTH™'. Why shouldn't I?
Because there's no such thing as "the biblical teaching on sexuality." The Bible says a lot of things about sexuality, many of them contradictory with one another, or with other things the Bible says about people in general.
What there are, are people's interpretations of the Bible on the topic (topics, really) of sexuality. And you agree with one of them, one of them so self-aggrandizing as to call itself THE Biblical teaching on sexuality.
This is just another example of the problem of people who think they are reading the Bible without an interpretation, that they (and they alone, in some instances) are reading what's REALLY THERE, and not through the lens of this or that. News flash: it's simply not possible. Every statement of "what the Bible says" is an interpretation read through a specific lens or set of lenses. Even on the topic of sexuality.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
SL,
What mt and Eliab said.
Forget the state for the moment. If your church allows LGBT+ full and equal acceptance, it does you and your beliefs no harm. The opposite is not true. If your beliefs are allowed to control how your church treats LGBT+ Christians, they are harmed.
ETA: It is fine for a person to think their beliefs are true. However, as soon as they start to think they are TRUE™ they have begun losing the way.
[ 11. September 2016, 23:12: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
Okay, I shouldn't have dragged in forgiveness. What I'm referring to is Jesus' whole recommended attitude toward our enemies--the whole "if he makes you go one mile, go with him two" and the like. The "love your enemies, do good to those who hate you" and the like.
And I'm not responding to the OP or anything else but this (below) specific kind of attitude. I'm not singling out ThunderBunk personally, just needed an example:
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
I am quite prepared to hug a homophobe on one strict condition: before the hug takes place, they must have acknowledged our equality before God. The peace of Christ then exists between us, whatever else may exist. However, without that acknowledgement, no hug will take place, and I'm not immediately sure how the acknowledgment could happen.
If you are going to take seriously the business of loving your enemies, you're going to run into problems if you start placing preconditions on their attitudes, choices, behavior, or whatever. "I will love you provided you [blank]." Is that not to say "I will love you provided you cease to be my enemy"?
My example of racism (which is always on my mind, given my next door neighbor): I could say "I refuse to love you until you speak of us / treat us with human decency." And by the world's light, I'd be right.
But if she did that, she wouldn't be my enemy anymore, would she? And for me to place that precondition on her is essentially for me to excuse myself from the damned difficult work of loving someone who hates me, of picking up that cross and carrying it another few feet every day. Because we all know she isn't going to change on her own. Setting such a precondition is for me to say "I will never love you." Which makes my personal life much easier, doesn't it?
Now, as for this business of picking up other people's crosses--it was Lewis (who else?) who pointed out that if you are sufficiently engaged with someone else's injury to feel outrage as if it were yourself, you are sufficiently engaged to be responsible for loving and working to reconcile/forgive that enemy. You can't have it both ways. Either the injury is not yours, in which case you feel no outrage; or the injury has become yours, in which case the Christian responsibility for loving your enemy applies to you as well. And he's right to say it. Otherwise we can all get outraged about every freaking evil in the world with a totally clear conscience and no obligation to actually seek peace in any way. Because "it's not us."
I don't believe Christ lets us off so lightly.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
Or we could say, You hurt my brother. It's up to him to forgive you. I'll follow his lead.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
posted by lilBuddha quote:
I think it is simple, LC. Why should LGBT+ Christians unreservedly welcome homophobic Christians when they do not do the same in return?
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
Precisely! Quite apart from anything else, turning the other cheek (never mind hugging) and being welcoming can (I suspect is) interpreted as validation for their own intolerance.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Naturally I believe that the biblical teaching on sexuality is the 'TRUTH™'. Why shouldn't I?
Because there's no such thing as "the biblical teaching on sexuality." The Bible says a lot of things about sexuality, many of them contradictory with one another, or with other things the Bible says about people in general.
What there are, are people's interpretations of the Bible on the topic (topics, really) of sexuality. And you agree with one of them, one of them so self-aggrandizing as to call itself THE Biblical teaching on sexuality.
This is just another example of the problem of people who think they are reading the Bible without an interpretation, that they (and they alone, in some instances) are reading what's REALLY THERE, and not through the lens of this or that. News flash: it's simply not possible. Every statement of "what the Bible says" is an interpretation read through a specific lens or set of lenses. Even on the topic of sexuality.
Look, guys, whatever may be the case with some modern writings, when you're talking about ancient writings (in this context stuff more than about two centuries old, and especially anything pre-printing), you can take it as pretty certain that things were only written down because they were considered important, and the writers would aim to be as clear and understandable as possible and to minimise possible misunderstanding.
Remember back then writing materials were a scarce luxury, and your writing implement clumsy and slow by modern standards. I recall as a kid at junior school being taught 'joined-up writing' with an old-fashioned 'dip pen'; that was bad enough, quills and such would be even harder. You don't do that kind of thing just for fun.... Ditto copying; you weren't going to boringly copy stuff unless it was considered worthwhile – or order multiple copies unless you considered the copies worth the considerable scribes' fees.
So one of the 'interpretative lenses' you can apply to old writings is that they are likely to have a fairly clear and straightforward meaning and minimal range of credible alternative meaning. The aim would have been communication, not confusion....
'Clear and straightforward' doesn't necessarily mean 'dumb wooden literal', of course. Human language, spoken or written, can have considerable literary artistry and use all kinds of metaphors and other figures of speech, literary devices, and literary conventions of the day. So yes, you'll need to do some 'interpretation'; but that doesn't mean you can make it mean whatever you like. Only a quite limited range of interpretations will be truly plausible and credible, and it's likely they will be pretty much pointing in the same direction, just in varying degrees of how literally you take it. Other interpretation, no matter how much you might wish them to be true, will be basically incredibly and implausibly strained and stretched if not downright tortured, and rather than adopt and rely on such 'interpretations' it would be more honest to just admit you disagree with the writer.
I recall in the 1960s we would often hear 'liberal' theologians spouting stuff like mousethief's comments above, about how you can make the Bible mean whatever you like. When seriously pressed it generally turned out that the product of such interpretation was so vague as to be useless and basically amounted to making Christianity up to suit themselves while hanging on to enough cosy, vague and sentimental biblical quotes to superficially claim to still be Christian. Often if pressed to interpret specific passages the 'liberals' would have to admit that the actual credible and plausible interpretation was also the traditional/evangelical interpretation, and that the liberals' real problem was not of multiple and confusing and contradictory interpretations, but rather that the credible interpretations were quite straightforward and obvious – and not what the liberals wanted to believe, not in agreement with their wishful thinking.
Until mousethief proves otherwise by producing a book of credible alternative interpretations of the biblical teaching on sexuality, I'm afraid I'm going to ignore what he wrote as simply a confusing smokescreen avoiding the real issues....
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on
:
Here we go again.
Steve, go away. A long way away. You have spilled your screed all over DH threads on the subject and I'm no more interested now than I was then.
And it's not debate, because you're not listening.
So shut up and go away.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
posted by lilBuddha quote:
I think it is simple, LC. Why should LGBT+ Christians unreservedly welcome homophobic Christians when they do not do the same in return?
Precisely! Quite apart from anything else, turning the other cheek (never mind hugging) and being welcoming can (I suspect is) interpreted as validation for their own intolerance.
Because in Christianity one's own behavior is not conditioned on the behavior of one's adversaries. Quite the opposite, in fact.
And should I fail to care for my next door neighbor or to welcome her simply because she loathes me? Should I worry that by showing that care I am somehow validating her racism?
The parallel would be Christ failing to heal Malchus' ear because he was at that very moment in the party arresting Jesus, and healing his ear might be seen as some form of validation for the travesty of justice he was involved in. Or, for that matter, Christ forgiving his murderers from the cross. Should he have worried that doing so would mean validating judicial torture and murder?
None of this applies to those who are not Christians. To those who ARE Christians, well, we get to wrestle with the problem of how to be Christ in a world where this will be seen as folly and weakness on our part.
But that doesn't let us out of doing it.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
If we're going to throw the Bible around, how about we go for the passage about excluding a believer who refuses to mend their ways?
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
To be honest, I don't really care what "the Bible says" on this. It says loads of stuff about how eating pork pies is incredibly bad, and guff about stoning rape victims to death as well. It's very much a product of its time, the obscene and the good. It may well be homophobic, but that doesn't prove that (a) God is, or (b) we should be.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
To be honest, I don't really care what "the Bible says" on this.
Well, this at least is honest. At least you know where you stand. Better than trying to make out that Jesus gives a special exception to loving one's enemies in the case of them being homophobic.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
If you are going to take seriously the business of loving your enemies, you're going to run into problems if you start placing preconditions on their attitudes, choices, behavior, or whatever. "I will love you provided you [blank]." Is that not to say "I will love you provided you cease to be my enemy"?
My example of racism (which is always on my mind, given my next door neighbor): I could say "I refuse to love you until you speak of us / treat us with human decency." And by the world's light, I'd be right.
But if she did that, she wouldn't be my enemy anymore, would she? And for me to place that precondition on her is essentially for me to excuse myself from the damned difficult work of loving someone who hates me, of picking up that cross and carrying it another few feet every day. Because we all know she isn't going to change on her own. Setting such a precondition is for me to say "I will never love you." Which makes my personal life much easier, doesn't it?
One of the problems with this kind of fetish for forgiving oppressors is that it so easily transforms into indifference about oppression. Objecting to, or even pointing out, oppression becomes defined as un-Christian behavior. For example, Martin Luther King, Jr. (one of those liberal theologians from the 1960s SL was complaining about) would be considered a bad Christian because he said unkind things about that Mr. Connor.
Interestingly this boomerangs around to touch on the point about the total clarity of all English language Bible translations. In particular relating to the translation of the Greek word "dikaiosune", which seems to mean "justice" when used by Plato but gets translated as "righteousness" when used by Paul or the Gospelteers. From someone else's analysis:
quote:
Those who approach the New Testament solely through English translations face a serious linguistic obstacle to apprehending what these writings say about justice. In most English translations, the word “justice” occurs relatively infrequently. It is no surprise, then, that most English-speaking people think the New Testament does not say much about justice; the Bibles they read do not say much about justice. English translations are in this way different from translations into Latin, French, Spanish, German, Dutch — and for all I know, most languages.
The basic issue is well known among translators and commentators. Plato’s Republic, as we all know, is about justice. The Greek noun in Plato’s text that is standardly translated as “justice” is “dikaiosune”; the adjective standardly translated as “just” is “dikaios.” This same dik-stem occurs around three hundred times in the New Testament, in a wide variety of grammatical variants.
To the person who comes to English translations of the New Testament fresh from reading and translating classical Greek, it comes as a surprise to discover that though some of those occurrences are translated with grammatical variants on our word “just,” the great bulk of dik-stem words are translated with grammatical variants on our word “right.” The noun, for example, is usually translated as “righteousness,” not as “justice.” In English we have the word “just” and its grammatical variants coming from the Latin iustitia, and the word “right” and its grammatical variants coming from the Old English recht. Almost all our translators have decided to translate the great bulk of dik-stem words in the New Testament with grammatical variants of the latter — just the opposite of the decision made by most translators of classical Greek.
[Snipped for copyright - please see rest of blog post in link - L]
This doesn't seem so much a case of something being "clear and straightforward" as it does of choosing an interpretation that minimizes expectations of justice. Given this it's unsurprising that for those like lamb chopped justice is a non-consideration.
[ 12. September 2016, 23:47: Message edited by: Louise ]
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
SL,
Take the food prohibitions: if those words were so important and precious, why were they waved away when they became inconvenient? Why aren't we stoning disobedient children? Why isn't polygamous marriage accepted in the Christian world? How can you can Christianity a religion of peace when God commands his followers to murder babies?
LC, there is a vast difference between forgiving your enemies abuse and accepting that abuse. Jesus forgave people, but he still told them they were wrong.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
Croesos, I am at work right now and cannot respond to your personal remarks about my character in the manner they deserve. I will be considering a Hell call for you later.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
To be honest, I don't really care what "the Bible says" on this.
Well, this at least is honest. At least you know where you stand. Better than trying to make out that Jesus gives a special exception to loving one's enemies in the case of them being homophobic.
I care about what Jesus said. It's not the sams thing.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Croesos, I am at work right now and cannot respond to your personal remarks about my character in the manner they deserve. I will be considering a Hell call for you later.
I was perhaps writing more generalistically than I should have, but as far as this particular topic goes the only thing you've said about justice is to reject the idea that Christians should worry about justice between individuals. It seems to be a non-consideration for you because I can't see anywhere you've given it any consideration on this thread.
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
Croesus: quote:
This doesn't seem so much a case of something being "clear and straightforward" as it does of choosing an interpretation that minimizes expectations of justice.
Reading modern interpretations of these two words back into Jacobethan English is exactly what you're accusing Lamb Chopped of.
(pause to consult dictionary) 'Right' and its various derivatives has 24 possible meanings (in my version of the Oxford Dictionary). 'Just' has one (or two, if you count the adverbial meaning as well). Also 'righteousness' derives from the Old English word 'rihtwis', whereas 'justice' was borrowed into Middle English from Old French. Given that the King James translators were 400 years closer to the Norman Conquest than we were, it is not surprising that they chose the everyday English word that everyone in the congregation would understand over the technical legal (FOREIGN) word that only a handful of educated people would understand.
You can't blame them for the fact that nobody bothered to update their translation for several centuries, with the result that 'righteousness' fell out of general use, any more than you can blame them for the fact that 'thou' went from being the familiar/informal form of address to being considered archaic/very formal.
The KJV translators did the best translation they could for the people of their time. It is not their fault if 400 years later some people think their translation is the inerrant Word of God. That whirring noise you hear is them revolving in their graves.
I had a look at the New International Version on Bible Gateway, and righteousness does appear more often than justice. However, that could have something to do with the fact that righteousness (an English word which is not available as an option to French or Spanish Bible translators, though I'm surprised the Germans and Dutch don't have an equivalent) can be used in a wider variety of contexts. It's also coupled with justice in several places - e.g. 1 Kings 10 8-9.
All of this is a very long-winded way of saying that translations of the Bible do need to be revised or completely re-done regularly, because language is a moving target.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Croesus: quote:
This doesn't seem so much a case of something being "clear and straightforward" as it does of choosing an interpretation that minimizes expectations of justice.
Reading modern interpretations of these two words back into Jacobethan English is exactly what you're accusing Lamb Chopped of.
Actually I'm accusing Lamb Chopped of being obsessed with forgiveness to an extent that questions of justice or righteousness don't enter into her consideration at all, at least so far as this thread goes. The bit about "clear and straightforward" Bible translation was my attempt to twit Steve Langdon (who uses the exact phrase "clear and straightforward") on his hobby-horse about the Bible being clear and not needing any kind of interpretation. That if the Bible says "righteous", it means exactly that in the sense the term is understood by modern speakers of idiomatic English.
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
The KJV translators did the best translation they could for the people of their time. It is not their fault if 400 years later some people think their translation is the inerrant Word of God. That whirring noise you hear is them revolving in their graves.
I know. I've been trying to harness the rotational energy as a form of sustainable, non-greenhouse gas emitting power. Don't worry, I'll be sure to mention everyone on the Ship in my Nobel acceptance speech.
The broader point I'm making is that having a Bible that focuses on 'righteousness' is different than having one which concentrates on 'justice' (at least to modern English speakers), that this was a deliberate choice, and that the preference for righteousness over justice is not a clear one, nor even a majority opinion among translators. We can see an illustration of this in LC's contention that Christians only need worry about their own actions (righteousness) and not concern themselves about wrongs to others (justice).
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
My thought is that there is a lot of weight put on the preferred focus of sin in both camps. Many homophobes will do their damnedest to keep from soiling themselves with the presence of LGBT people despite anything else about their characters or personalities, as if sexual orientation was all that counted. LGBT people will often disdain homophobes despite anything else positive those people do in other spheres. I know hate-the-sin-love-the-sinner is used to cover many wrongs and in fact the person saying it is usually not loving at all toward the sinner. But even totally standing up to homophobia, speaking out wherever it rears its ugly head, IMO doesn't have to mean being hostile on all occasions (occasions when homophobia is not being pushed) to someone who is wrong-headed in this area. My father got over many of his prejudices later in life because he got to know LGBT people at church as kind and decent people. If they had applied a litmus test that everyone they associated with had to be completely prejudice-free, he might not have made the leap.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Originally posted by Jane R:
quote:
The KJV translators did the best translation they could for the people of their time.
Not quite. Commissioned works are often marred by the agenda of the commissioner. The KVJ is a work of political and sectarian effort as well as earnest translation and temporal POV.
There are many variations in Biblical translation, each with its proponents claiming it is definitive. The KVJ has had a prominence largely due to the circumstances of its creation.
One can believe it is also correct, but that is a separate claim.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Croesos;
quote:
The bit about "clear and straightforward" Bible translation was my attempt to twit Steve Langton (who uses the exact phrase "clear and straightforward") on his hobby-horse about the Bible being clear and not needing any kind of interpretation. That if the Bible says "righteous", it means exactly that in the sense the term is understood by modern speakers of idiomatic English.
So I move from you illogically misrepresenting me in one thread to you illogically misrepresenting me on another... though to be fair, I think Gamaliel has quite a bit to do with this misinterpretation....
My actual position is somewhat like this, as expressed by the Bible translator Tyndale and also pretty much common ground among Reformation leaders;
quote:
“Thou shalt understand, therefore, that the scripture hath but one sense, which is the literal sense. And that literal sense is the root and ground of all, and the anchor that never faileth, whereunto if thou cleave, thou canst never err or go out of the way. And if thou leave the literal sense, thou canst not but go out of the way. Nevertheless the scripture uses proverbs, similitudes, riddles or allegories, as all other speeches do; but that which the proverb, similitude, riddle or allegory signifieth, is ever the literal sense, which thou must seek out diligently.”
For full understanding note that in those days the 'literal' sense did not mean 'dumb wooden literalism'. It comes from the then idea of scholars of a 'fourfold sense' in which the 'literal' sense meant something on the lines of 'read the Bible like an ordinary book' as distinct from more exotic senses like the 'allegorical' or 'prophetic'. The Reformers felt that the results of allegorical etc. while exotic, were also often unhelpful and were used to dubiously bolster dodgy Catholic interpretations. In asserting the 'literal' sense they were saying that that 'plain' or 'ordinary book' sense was primary and that the more exotic and spectacular 'senses' should not be allowed to override, obscure or contradict the plain sense.
At the same time, as you can see from Tyndale, there was a full recognition that human language is a rich business involving all kinds of artistic devices like metaphors and other figures of speech, literary conventions of the day, and so forth, which, as Tyndale points out, involves interpretation - of a straightforward commonsense kind.
(as a bit of a PS to this section, Tyndale's "as all other speeches do..." means in effect that the language of the Bible isn't 'special' but the Hebrew or Greek works in broadly the same kind of way as other human language)
by Croesos;
quote:
That if the Bible says "righteous", it means exactly that in the sense the term is understood by modern speakers of idiomatic English.
Well there's a muddle - do you really think I only use the KJV or only English translations? Although I'm not fluent in NT/'koine' Greek, I do in fact use an 'interlinear' Greek/English version which gives me the Greek text with the English word-for-word under the Greek, and I further use a Greek/English dictionary.
I also use more than one English version; my favourites are NIV for general purposes, 'TEV/Good News' for a version akin to 'koine' Greek in having been prepared originally for use in countries where English is everybody's second language like Greek was in much of the Mediterranean lands in NT times, and Berkeley (California!) for a version not afraid to use long words....
So no, I don't necessarily interpret 'righteous' "just as in idiomatic English" because apart from anything else I know that the original is Greek and I need to take that into account. And a Croesos (or a Gamaliel for that matter) who actually read what I wrote, instead of just looking for out-of-context snippets to make malicious fun of, would have known that about me and would have known better than make the 'fun'....
As regards the recent discussion here of 'righteous' I've not been following it very closely - because I've been heavily involved in another thread and a discussion on another forum - so I won't try and enter into this part of the discussion here right now. But Croesos, NO MORE MISREPRESENTATION PLEASE.
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on
:
Behold, a ranting homophobe. Hug him? Well, if he lets me kiss him first...
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
In particular relating to the translation of the Greek word "dikaiosune", which seems to mean "justice" when used by Plato but gets translated as "righteousness" when used by Paul or the Gospelteers.
Ironically, Plato argues in the Republic that 'dikaiosune' consists in the three parts of one's soul each performing their functions and not interfering with the other parts. In short, he concludes that it is 'primarily if not exclusively a trait of personal character'.
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
quote:
The parallel would be Christ failing to heal Malchus' ear because he was at that very moment in the party arresting Jesus, and healing his ear might be seen as some form of validation for the travesty of justice he was involved in. Or, for that matter, Christ forgiving his murderers from the cross. Should he have worried that doing so would mean validating judicial torture and murder?
These are difficult matters but I am reminded of the line in C. S. Lewis 'Reflections On The Psalms' where he observes that a denial of justice ought not to be tied up with an exhortation to charity unless one wanted to convey the impression that charity was a sanctimonious dodge to allow people to duck out of their obligations. (I forget the exact quote but I'm fairly sure that "sanctimonious dodge" are the exact words). It's one thing for Christ to heal Malchus and forgive on the cross. But these are only evidence of a righteousness which goes beyond justice if we acknowledge that a denial of justice exists in the first place. Paul tells us that it is generally a bad idea to let sin abound that grace may flourish. We may be called to forgive the unjust but we are not called to let them run rampant. If we want to think in the terms of the state of peoples souls then letting them get away with stuff indefinitely is going to give them the impression that they are never going to have to re-evaluate their choices. If you want to say that the gay person must forgive the homophobe and the homophobe repent, then I am probably with you, but if the gay person must always forgive and the homophobe never repent, then that strikes me as an ideologically loaded choice.
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Better than trying to make out that Jesus gives a special exception to loving one's enemies in the case of them being homophobic.
This may not be the position of everyone who has responded to you, but as far as I'm concerned the problem is not that what you are saying is wrong, but that it's wrong-headed. You're making the right points about the wrong targets.
Homophobic Christians aren't suffering under the righteous anger of the affirming. The problem that you're addressing of homophobes being excluded and marginalised simply is not happening in 99% of churches. Perhaps (please God) in the wider world explicit homophobia is becoming a social embarrassment, but there's still plenty of space for it in the church. Gay Christians don't, in general, need any lessons in disagreeing without hating. As a class, they've pretty much got that sorted. The real malice is all on the other side.
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
My kind of Christian does NOT believe in imposing our ideas on others - only in persuasion that people should join us and accept our positions voluntarily. I'm just as opposed as you are to the Christians who believe it to be their job to use state law to discriminate against people of other beliefs. In Peter's words we are not to be 'allotriepiskopoi' bossily managing other people's affairs. If the state wants to allow same sex marriage, it can; if it wants to insist that I accept that as right and proper, they go too far.
That seems to me not fully thought through.
Obviously as a political liberal I share the view that the state should not impose rules derived from one religion on people of other views.
From that starting point, it seems to me that the question is then whether opposition to same sex marriage is right for good secular reasons. If it is then (and only then) a non-theocratic Christian could still be politically opposed.
But if not - if the objection is only religious - then surely you SHOULD conclude that, according to the moral standards which justly apply to a secular state, it IS right and proper to allow legal same sex marriage.
You seem to be saying that it's wrong for Christians (on this issue) to work to get their anti-gay opinions enshrined in law, because that's not what the law is for, AND also saying that the state is wrong in not reflecting your anti-gay opinions. I don't think that fits. If you are right not to want to impose your views, the state can't be wrong for not imposing them on its own initiative. Maybe I've misunderstood you, though.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
Behold, a ranting homophobe. Hug him? Well, if he lets me kiss him first...
Don't do hugs or kisses - not a sexuality thing, Asperger's!
Which is also why I was more than a bit annoyed with the illogicality of Croesos' misrepresentation of my attitude to biblical interpretation.
Basic deal - if the way I and vast numbers of other Christians interpret the Bible is sound, then yes, gay sex is sinful. It doesn't help to misrepresent my interpretation rather than properly debate it. I'll be coming back to that tomorrow, I think.
Posted by Louise (# 30) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
Here we go again.
Steve, go away. A long way away. You have spilled your screed all over DH threads on the subject and I'm no more interested now than I was then.
And it's not debate, because you're not listening.
So shut up and go away.
Hosting
This post is way beyond the pale for a non-Hell board and is a breach of commandments 3 and 4 which I will be flagging up to the admins. Any repeat violations could result in an admin dealing with your offences rather than a host. I do not recommend this, so please nothing like this here again.
There have been multiple problems on this thread since I last looked, so there may be multiple host posts as I deal with all the offenders.
Louise
Dead Horses Host
Hosting off
Edited to add, your later post also looks bad to me - it could be taken in a general way - but coming directly after a another Steve Langton post and your previous personal attack. I will be flagging this up to the admins.
[ 12. September 2016, 23:10: Message edited by: Louise ]
Posted by Louise (# 30) on
:
hosting
Lambchopped, please don't go accusing people of making personal attacks. That's a host call. If you want to call someone to Hell, then just call them to Hell. As a matter of fact, Croesos's initial post which you took offence to doesn't cross the line as it reads to me as an attack on your argument not yourself.
However matters didn't rest there, as Croesos did go on to get openly personal
quote:
Actually I'm accusing Lamb Chopped of being obsessed with forgiveness to an extent that questions of justice or righteousness don't enter into her consideration at all, at least so far as this thread goes. The bit about "clear and straightforward" Bible translation was my attempt to twit Steve Langdon (who uses the exact phrase "clear and straightforward") on his hobby-horse about the Bible being clear and not needing any kind of interpretation.
Croesos, please confine yourself to uncomplimentary comments on people's arguments not on the persons themselves. There is a fine line between 'twitting' and deliberately winding people up. If you want to accuse people of unflattering things and to wind them up that belongs in hell, please don't do it here.
There's also the matter of your overlong quote which I will be fixing. Under Commandment 7 we don't encourage this stuff for copyright reasons. Please link or precis rather than quote extensively.
Louise
Dead Horses Host
hosting off
Posted by Louise (# 30) on
:
hosting
quote:
So I move from you illogically misrepresenting me in one thread to you illogically misrepresenting me on another... though to be fair, I think Gamaliel has quite a bit to do with this misinterpretation....
Steve Langton, you are not to drag your feud with Gamaliel onto this board.
Nor is it Ok to reply in kind by getting personal to a poster who has pursued a personal conflict with you. Take it to the Hell board as per C4 or leave it alone.
Also this thread is not for huge derails about the literal/'common sense' interpretation of the Bible. It doesn't really count as Biblical inerrancy, [Update 14/9/2016- we've decided it's a kind of 'inerrancy lite' and so can go on the Biblical inerrancy thread]. The topic of this thread is churches' attitudes to homophobia and whether they should 'embrace and welcome homophobes".
If you want to argue about whether homosexuality is wrong or not according to the Bible then it belongs on this thread. Anyone else who wants to argue with Steve Langton about the Bible's view of homosexuality can also do it there.
Louise
Dead Horses Host
hosting off
edited to clarify topic
[ 14. September 2016, 22:12: Message edited by: Louise ]
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
At the same time, as you can see from Tyndale, there was a full recognition that human language is a rich business involving all kinds of artistic devices like metaphors and other figures of speech, literary conventions of the day, and so forth, which, as Tyndale points out, involves interpretation - of a straightforward commonsense kind.
AKA having your cake and eating it too.
It is a convenient dodge that allows for a God who conveniently has the same prejudices as the "interpreter".
Posted by Louise (# 30) on
:
Hello Lil Buddha,
You may have missed my last host post - please take the biblical interpretation somewhere else.
cheers,
Louise
DH Host
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
I am afraid I did miss that part. I skimmed to make certain I was not included in the admonitions and did not read the rest thoroughly. My apologies.
ETA: In the process of copying my preceding post to the proper thread.
[ 13. September 2016, 00:06: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
Croesus: quote:
I know. I've been trying to harness the rotational energy as a form of sustainable, non-greenhouse gas emitting power. Don't worry, I'll be sure to mention everyone on the Ship in my Nobel acceptance speech.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
Having just read the host's admonitions, I will merely apologise for misinterpreting you.
I think Eliab explains the problem very clearly here:
quote:
Perhaps (please God) in the wider world explicit homophobia is becoming a social embarrassment, but there's still plenty of space for it in the church. Gay Christians don't, in general, need any lessons in disagreeing without hating. As a class, they've pretty much got that sorted. The real malice is all on the other side.
Yes... that's what struck me about the AbC's statement. He seems to be using the same tactics as they used in the disagreement over women priests - pretend it's not happening for as long as possible, then tell the opponents they can go on being beastly to the ones who want change and if the people who want change complain, accuse them of being unChristian. And gosh, that worked so well the first time they tried it...
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
Here we go again.
Steve, go away. A long way away. You have spilled your screed all over DH threads on the subject and I'm no more interested now than I was then.
And it's not debate, because you're not listening.
So shut up and go away.
Hosting
This post is way beyond the pale for a non-Hell board and is a breach of commandments 3 and 4 which I will be flagging up to the admins. Any repeat violations could result in an admin dealing with your offences rather than a host. I do not recommend this, so please nothing like this here again.
There have been multiple problems on this thread since I last looked, so there may be multiple host posts as I deal with all the offenders.
Louise
Dead Horses Host
Hosting off
Edited to add, your later post also looks bad to me - it could be taken in a general way - but coming directly after a another Steve Langton post and your previous personal attack. I will be flagging this up to the admins.
Apologies. The red mist descended. I will indeed cease and desist.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
Sorry Louise. I was a bit het up by, as my post suggested, coming direct from being really grossly misinterpreted on another thread to finding the person involved admitting that something he'd said here was a deliberate attempt to 'twit' me. My resultant excursus on biblical interpretation was not intended as a direct contribution on this thread but simply to explain my actual position in contrast to what Croesos had implied. I'm not anxious to get too involved in this thread anyway.
As regards Gamaliel, no feud as such but Croesos' comments practically echoed stuff from Gamaliel which I've been finding annoying because G keeps saying it even when I've repeatedly explained the actual position.
Posted by Louise (# 30) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
As regards Gamaliel, no feud as such but Croesos' comments practically echoed stuff from Gamaliel which I've been finding annoying because G keeps saying it even when I've repeatedly explained the actual position.
hosting
Thanks for the apology, but bringing this up at all, and now for the second time on a thread outside Hell where Gamaliel isn't posting is a situation covered by Commandment 4. If you must get personal, take it to Hell. It's not whether you think you have a feud or conflict with someone but whether the hosts and admins think the way you bring up another poster is a problem, which is why I warned you. Please don't bring up your disagreements with Gamaliel/ or explanations about how he annoys you on a thread where he is not posting, unless you are posting on the Hell board.
Also please remember that anything that goes much beyond a simple 'I'm sorry'/oops! to a host ruling belongs in The Styx. If you want to post anything further on the subject it would need to go in The Styx.
Thanks,
Louise
Dead Horses Host
hosting off
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
Sorry again ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
If the state wants to allow same sex marriage, it can; if it wants to insist that I accept that as right and proper, they go too far.
The state (and most other people not related to you) doesn't really care about your opinion of what is "right and proper", they just care that you acknowledge such things as "legally binding". The problem is the whole "I can't accept this as right or proper" position is most often an euphemism for "I think I should be exempt from following this law".
If you claim your church opposes inter-racial marriage (or "black and white shacking") you're free to explain to inter-racial couples (in a non-threatening and non-harassing manner) why they're depraved sinners, but if you refuse to rent living space to them on those grounds you've still violated the Fair Housing Act.
A Catholic insurance adjuster can truly believe that Bob is actually still married to his first wife Alice and is free to tell second wife Carol that she's an adultress. But he's not permitted to pay Bob's death benefit to Alice instead of Carol.
Likewise, if someone converts religions and decides that their previous lesbian marriage isn't valid, they're free to say so. But acting as if the child custody agreement in place doesn't exist still counts as kidnapping. (Steve will like that last one. It's got Anabaptists in it.)
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
I had an interesting conversation with a young man at an Episcopal pot luck last night. Surprisingly to me, used to quite liberal Piskies, he started going on about the "unnatural" nature of homosexuality. My mind boggled. So I dived in with speaking about Biblical context, temple prostitution, that the sin of Sodom wasn't really homosexuality, and the inequity of demanding self-sacrifice from one group of believers over another. So I asked him what they ought to do. He said they should stop being homosexual(!). I asked him if he personally knew of anyone who had changed gender preference by an act of will. He had to admit that he hadn't, But he insisted that if LBGT people had been informed that non-heterosexual intimacy was sinful, then if they continued knowingly sinning, they shouldn't be considered Christian. (!!!) Then I said, "You do realize that one of our bishops (suffragan, who'd recently found another position in another diocese) has been gay?" Was he ready to declare her a non-Christian? He went speechless. I told him that he was just darned lucky he was heterosexual given his opinions. Otherwise he'd go through life feeling accursed the way such opinions have made many other people who believe in Christ feel.
I didn't raise my voice. I smiled at times. But, no, I didn't hug him.
Posted by Russ (# 120) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
I know hate-the-sin-love-the-sinner is used to cover many wrongs and in fact the person saying it is usually not loving at all toward the sinner.
Sounds like you're saying that the problem with this principle is that people who know it and believe it don't always do it.
True. But that's a test that very few principles would pass.
It's hard to do, whether applied to homosexuals or homophobes - whoever it is that you're tempted to hate.
It's where we ought to be - recognising that X is a basically decent person with whom I disagree about what constitutes right and wrong conduct in this particular area.
But it's made doubly hard by a tendency to identify the perceived sin with the person. "X is one of the class of people who do that - it's what they are".
No it isn't. What you do is not what you are. What you are is a person with the power to change what you do.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
I know hate-the-sin-love-the-sinner is used to cover many wrongs and in fact the person saying it is usually not loving at all toward the sinner.
Sounds like you're saying that the problem with this principle is that people who know it and believe it don't always do it.
But when we never see them doing it, it becomes reasonable to ask if they really believe it at all.
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
Back in the '90s I knew a couple who theoretically disapproved of homosexuality on religious grounds but had gay friends and his (not her) son was gay. In fact I ended up going with her to a Unitarian marriage rite for their Lesbian neighbours when this kind of thing was comparatively unusual. He was "The Bible tells us that homosexuality is wrong. By the way, have I introduced you to my gay son and my gay best friend". She was rather more conflicted. If I was going to get all Jean-Paul Sartre about this I would say that actually they didn't really disapprove of homosexuality because faced with the decision whether or not to make their disapproval overt or to be kind to people they cared about they invariably chose being kind. But if I had put it to them baldly in those terms they would have been most indignant.
According to a history of Poland I read some years ago, during the Second World War there were people who thought that the Jews were accursed for crucifying Christ but also thought that the Nazis had levelled the score and, therefore, decided that it was their moral duty to shelter Jews from the Nazis.
Unfortunately there will always be people who think that they have a theoretical commitment to love one another which is somewhat undermined by a much less theoretical commitment to prejudice and bigotry. But there are also people with a theoretical commitment to prejudice and bigotry who end up doing the right thing. I'm not sure what the moral of that is, to be honest.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
It's weird to me to hear people talking like you've got to wholly welcome and agree with everything a person is involved with (Disney tunes, brrrrrr) or else you don't actually love the person. But surely you know people you disagree with deeply but nevertheless love dearly?
I thought these were called one's "children." Or "parents."
Seriously, though, the bulk of my friends hold positions I deeply disagree with, and not a few hold positions I abhor. It doesn't stop me from loving them.
(ETA: Have you no Trumpinistas in your family?)
[ 16. November 2016, 00:25: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Unfortunately there will always be people who think that they have a theoretical commitment to love one another which is somewhat undermined by a much less theoretical commitment to prejudice and bigotry. But there are also people with a theoretical commitment to prejudice and bigotry who end up doing the right thing. I'm not sure what the moral of that is, to be honest.
The former are lesser and the latter are better.
It is easy to have a lesser practical standard than one's stated, but more difficult to go beyond.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Or Salvor Hardin's line from Asimov's "Foundation" series.
"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what it right."
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Yeah, get all quotey and concise.
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Seriously, though, the bulk of my friends hold positions I deeply disagree with, and not a few hold positions I abhor. It doesn't stop me from loving them.
(ETA: Have you no Trumpinistas in your family?)
For me, this sort of works, but its point of abrupt failure is when I perceive these positions as constituting an attack on me personally (as indeed demonstrated above).
When, for example, I am effectively told that claims to be both gay and Christian are inherently invalid, I will go on the offensive in defence of my position. I appreciate that this is not entirely without its logical or procedural problems, but there we are. My further perception is that there is a valid position to be occupied which does not cause me to go on the offensive, meaning that the fault does not lie with me if an offensive is triggered. Nor do I see why I should be required to be all sweetness and light to people who are telling me that I don't have the right to exist.
This is also why threads like this are personal. They cannot be abstract, for me.
[ 16. November 2016, 18:26: Message edited by: ThunderBunk ]
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Yeah, get all quotey and concise.
No need to get pithy.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
OK. What Asimov was saying through his character is important. It's easy to bring pre-existing values, even a kind of automatic thinking, to specific complex situations involving other people and think you know what is right. It is much harder to look, really look, and listen, before deciding. But it's better to do that.
It's a good, memorable saying, whose apparent paradox brings us up with a jolt against our tendencies to pre-judge.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0