|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Hostility to Traditional Christians on the Ship
|
Sarah G
Shipmate
# 11669
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
"Outnumbered" is relevant if it drowns out the signal.
<snip>
The lone 1 might feel rather beleaguered, but you can still have some sensible discussions.
When all 10 are responding to each point of the 1, it's a bit of a challenge, though.
It's more than a challenge. As a number of people have said, it's very, very hard work, quite impossible to hold 10 quality simultaneous discussions, and no fun at all for the one. If we want to explore issues properly and in a balanced way, 10 v 1 is a bad set-up.
Furthermore, as people have said, they will avoid being 'the one', leading to a Ship that lists permanently and very noticeably to port.
Hence my interest in the comment, if I understand correctly, that Erin used to put a stop to content dogpiling. Perhaps there is room for an extra commandment:
If two people have critiqued a post fully, you don't need to add more of the same. Use the time to phone your mother, make jam, or discover what's making the noise in the walls.
Dunno. Maybe people want the Ship to be a place where everyone thinks the same and 'wrong' views are never expressed.
You'll end up preaching to the converted, though. And bored.
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Conversely, I think prawns are disgusting, but I don't think they're wrong.
Except that they are wrong.
I did think the link would go here but I like yours.
Posts: 514 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
A word about - phobia. It does actually mean irrational or instinctive fear. And there's the rub. Labelling someone as, for example, homophobic, is saying that you perceive they are not rational and are governed by feelings of fear.
This may be right, but it may not do justice to the reasons people have for "seeing things differently" - again a helpful phrase.
When I was at school and then starting at uni, gays (queers then) really did not exist for me and my group. We would talk of dirty old men, which teachers you needed to take care of, usually with no reason. So no phobia there.
Then when I was not quite 21, I was indecently assaulted in a largish private gathering by Robert Helpmann. Not surprisingly, I was homophobic for a number of years afterwards. Then I came to know some gays socially, and in particular received quite a bit of work from a gay solicitor. Madame and I became very friendly with him and his very long term partner. Views changed and what was left of the previous phobia has long gone.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gottschalk
Shipmate
# 13175
|
Posted
quote:
For that matter, it's a mistake to identify all engagement with society with engagement with the state. Authoritarian governments tend to want to identify the two. But a society in which public participation is limited to the state is an atrophied society.
The distinction certainly should be maintained. However, it is difficult these days to disentangled the two because the state (centralised, London-based, nationalistic, managerial, etc) has taken over many functions fulfilled by society not so much by stealth or by deception as by the argument of results and efficacy - the marshalling of resources and the redistribution.
The state through a species of taxation seeks to enforce a largely unmonitored, unaccountable system of national sympathy upon us when that money could be channelled directly for the support of local issues. But this is conditional upon a reform of local authorities, and ultimately, of our rotten and corrupt party system and machinery. It also nurtures the self-righteousness of the middle-classes who can, through their taxes, congratulate themselves on doing good to their neighbour...
Engagement in society, in social issues, thus seems supererogatory because the state is seemingly already doing so much.
--------------------
Gottschalk
Ad bellum exit Ajax
Posts: 157 | From: The Kingdom of Fife | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I find the sociological perspective more interesting. The sociology of religion routinely posits religious groups as either in low or high tension with the surrounding culture. Indeed, there's a spectrum between the very high tension sect and the low tension church.
I think you've truncated the spectrum of the sociology of religion a little there. "Hegemonic dominance" should be on there somewhere. Something along the lines of "this is a [Christian / Muslim / Whatever] country, so our laws, customs, and people should adhere to [Christian / Muslim / Whatever] norms". Quite a common phenomenon, historically speaking, and not unheard of today.
The complaints of Gottschalk (and similar) seem to be the mournful cries of displaced hegemons, those who are used to being regarded as the moral arbiters of everything who suddenly (and in their eyes unjustly) find their former authority questioned, or even outright denied.
'Hegemonic dominance' doesn't seem to have much to do with church-sect theory, which is what I was referring to.
Actually, I'd argue that high tension Christian groups should be very wary of seeking political or cultural hegemony. They risk losing their religious distinctiveness and spiritual power by vying for mainstream power and status. This is what happened to the Puritans and their ilk in the long run. In our time the American 'Religious Right' appears to be headed down this route. AFAIUI evangelicalism is more of an identity than a counter-cultural way of life and faith for many Americans.
(Of course, the USA also has many strict groups which do keep their distance from the secular power struggle: e.g. the JWs, the Amish, the black Pentecostal denominations. I'm inclined to think they're wise to do so.)
England is in a more confused situation because it has a state church. No matter how many atheists and others insist on 'displaced hegemons', Anglicans can still point to the CofE's established status. I still wonder why no one in our apparently post-Christian country has dealt with this anachronism out yet.
However, all of this is moot with regards to Gottschalk, who appears to be based in Scotland and is RC. Neither her country nor her church have been 'dominant' on these islands for 100s of years. I don't know if she harks back to the time when Henry VIII was loyal to the Pope, but having looked at what she's said here, she doesn't seem to be hung up on a general loss of 'Christian' political dominance. She doesn't vote, so she's not using the ballot box to impose her religious beliefs on the majority of British people who would disapprove of them.
(BTW, you mentioned Muslims, but is there any country in the world where Islam has lost its 'hegemonic dominance'? Maybe Azerbaijan. On the whole, religious Muslims don't really have to complain that everyone is ignoring them....)
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gottschalk:
The state through a species of taxation seeks to enforce a largely unmonitored, unaccountable system of national sympathy upon us when that money could be channelled directly for the support of local issues.
Could you clarify "species of taxation" and "system of national sympathy" please? I don't understand what you mean by either phrase.
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
RuthW: Stop screwing around with the "anyone" statements. I asked you specifically if you had heard me, personally, denigrating any human group on the Ship. Have you?
I'll screw around with whatever statements I want. I'm not going to spend a lot of time trawling through your old posts. I am talking about what you have said on this thread. Kaplan Corday said:
quote:
At the same time, there must be a recognised right for Christians to say that they regard both as meaningless and wrong - without being vilified with stupid, manipulative Orwellian neologisms like "Hinduphobic" or "homophobic" for simply expressing disagreement.
I disagreed, and you defended the statement. You posted a long thing about how Shipmates used to be able to discuss abhorrent views without resorting to personal attack, but now you're apparently trying to draw me into making this personal. Another thing that's not going to happen.
quote:
Or do you look at my group membership and immediately consign me to a barrel of assholes? In which case I think you make my point for me about hostility to traditional Christians.
My hostility toward several of your points of view is quite well documented, whether it makes your point or not. And group membership matters. This might be where the nuanced views come in, as someone might be working from within an institution to change it, but at the end of the day, group membership still one way or another supports the group and its stated doctrines and values.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
A word about - phobia. It does actually mean irrational or instinctive fear. And there's the rub. Labelling someone as, for example, homophobic, is saying that you perceive they are not rational and are governed by feelings of fear.
This may be right, but it may not do justice to the reasons people have for "seeing things differently" - again a helpful phrase.
When I was at school and then starting at uni, gays (queers then) really did not exist for me and my group. We would talk of dirty old men, which teachers you needed to take care of, usually with no reason. So no phobia there.
Then when I was not quite 21, I was indecently assaulted in a largish private gathering by Robert Helpmann. Not surprisingly, I was homophobic for a number of years afterwards. Then I came to know some gays socially, and in particular received quite a bit of work from a gay solicitor. Madame and I became very friendly with him and his very long term partner. Views changed and what was left of the previous phobia has long gone.
I am sorry this happened to you. I hope you got the help and support you needed, and I hope you got access to justice.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Gee D--
What Doublethink said.
![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
RuthW: Stop screwing around with the "anyone" statements. I asked you specifically if you had heard me, personally, denigrating any human group on the Ship. Have you?
I'll screw around with whatever statements I want. I'm not going to spend a lot of time trawling through your old posts. I am talking about what you have said on this thread. Kaplan Corday said:
quote:
At the same time, there must be a recognised right for Christians to say that they regard both as meaningless and wrong - without being vilified with stupid, manipulative Orwellian neologisms like "Hinduphobic" or "homophobic" for simply expressing disagreement.
I disagreed, and you defended the statement. You posted a long thing about how Shipmates used to be able to discuss abhorrent views without resorting to personal attack, but now you're apparently trying to draw me into making this personal. Another thing that's not going to happen.
quote:
Or do you look at my group membership and immediately consign me to a barrel of assholes? In which case I think you make my point for me about hostility to traditional Christians.
My hostility toward several of your points of view is quite well documented, whether it makes your point or not. And group membership matters. This might be where the nuanced views come in, as someone might be working from within an institution to change it, but at the end of the day, group membership still one way or another supports the group and its stated doctrines and values.
I had a much more vitriolic answer for you, but I'm not going to post it. It's not worth it.
You've proven the OP--the hostility (your own word) exists, and you endorse it wholeheartedly. And I'm not going to ever be out of the way of your abuse until I publicly sign up to your party line. You won't settle for anything less.
You presume to know my opinions, though I have never expressed them on the Ship, which you know damn well, though you refuse to do the work necessary to back up your own false statement. You further presume to judge me for those opinions, unknown to you.
And they're going to stay unknown to you. Nothing you could say at this point would move me to discuss such matters with you. Or with any other abusive, hostile poster.
You can go on "vilifying" and "being hostile" to me all you like. Impute whatever groundless evils you like to me. Make up your own facts and feel righteous about them, too. I'm done.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
You have the right to free speech, but not the right to escape vilification for what you say.
Etymological hairsplitting notwithstanding, the slur "homophobic" is clearly abusive, implying that at the very least anyone who disagrees with homosexual behaviour has something wrong with them.
I neither fear nor hate homosxuals but, as in the case of Hindus, simply disagree with their distinctive beliefs and behaviours.
I have exactly the same right to escape being vilified for this as homophobic, as the right homosexuals have to escape being vilified as poofters or faggots.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Just completely gobsmacked that you equate "homophobic" with "poofter" and "faggot."
Tell me, how many people have been beaten to death while being called "homophobic"? Answers on a postcard.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
It is not civil to tell someone they are sinners because of what they are, what they have no control over being.
First, no-one has any control over whether or not they experience SSA, but they do have a choice as to how they respond to that inclination.
Christian disagreement is with behaviour, not orientation.
Secondly, homosexual activity is not more serious than any other of the range of sins which we all commit in response to a range of inclinations.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
You have the right to free speech, but not the right to escape vilification for what you say.
Etymological hairsplitting notwithstanding, the slur "homophobic" is clearly abusive, implying that at the very least anyone who disagrees with homosexual behaviour has something wrong with them.
I neither fear nor hate homosxuals but, as in the case of Hindus, simply disagree with their distinctive beliefs and behaviours.
I have exactly the same right to escape being vilified for this as homophobic, as the right homosexuals have to escape being vilified as poofters or faggots.
Are you honestly equating being a homophobe with being gay? Seriously? Do you think racists are comparably persecuted to ethnic minorities? And don't try the "it's about their behaviour" tack - I can go to Stormfront and find plenty of "white nationalists" who'll say the same thing about black people.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
Lamb Chopped, you're the one who decided to make this personal, not me. I haven't abused you. And your whole thing about not posting your views is just you being coy.
Hostility toward "traditional" Christian views is the topic of the thread; Gottschalk's perception of that isn't crazy, paranoid, or hallucinatory. I'm sure this would be more comfortable if I were to bow before the gods of polite debate. But in my opinion, being polite about the more hateful topics in DH is like being polite about racism.
Kaplan Corday: Wow. Just wow.
A few years ago a couple of guys left the gay and lesbian center in my neighborhood and were followed to the end of my block, where someone beat the shit out of them for being gay. I am acquainted with one of the men, as he's the friend of a friend. My friend tells me the guy is still suffering from anxiety in public because of this. When someone beats the crap out of you because they think you're homophobic, get back to me.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stejjie
Shipmate
# 13941
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Yes. And no doubt they all went right back to disagreeing with one another. This is an awesome example of the attitude I'd like to see.
This is one of my favourite theological books. It exemplifies how to disagree properly.
I read it during my post-ordination studies (I'd been reading a lot of Wright and wanted/needed to read some disagreement with him for the sake of not becoming a Wright fanboy) and I agree entirely with this: it's a great example of how to disagree and debate well.
What's interesting about it in the context of this thread is that while I agreed much more with Wright than Borg, I warmed more to Borg than Wright. Wright writes impressively and makes his case well. Borg writes much more warmly and however much I was saying "yes, but..."to his arguments, I did prefer to read him.
--------------------
A not particularly-alt-worshippy, fairly mainstream, mildly evangelical, vaguely post-modern-ish Baptist
Posts: 1117 | From: Urmston, Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sarah G:
I did think the link would go here but I like yours.
I don't like my link. I hate that people die so others can have a cheap prawn cocktail. quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
First, no-one has any control over whether or not they experience SSA, but they do have a choice as to how they respond to that inclination.
Christian disagreement is with behaviour, not orientation.
Secondly, homosexual activity is not more serious than any other of the range of sins which we all commit in response to a range of inclinations.
This is an incredibly ignorant statement. We can discuss why, if you want to go to DH. Here we cannot.
As to your equating vilifying homophobia with the treatment LGBT+ receive, that is also stupid and ignorant.
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Then when I was not quite 21, I was indecently assaulted in a largish private gathering by Robert Helpmann. Not surprisingly, I was homophobic for a number of years afterwards. Then I came to know some gays socially, and in particular received quite a bit of work from a gay solicitor. Madame and I became very friendly with him and his very long term partner. Views changed and what was left of the previous phobia has long gone.
Any assault is a bad thing. But it is a sad state that if a person different from one does it, the difference is attributed to the assault. It is good that you have changed your view on this.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
But it is a sad state that if a person different from one does it, the difference is attributed to the assault. It is good that you have changed your view on this.
Sad, but totally human. I've had similar experiences of involuntary and barely conscious reactions to people who are similar to other people I've come across. Honesty regarding these reactions is the first step.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stejjie:
What's interesting about it in the context of this thread is that while I agreed much more with Wright than Borg, I warmed more to Borg than Wright. Wright writes impressively and makes his case well. Borg writes much more warmly and however much I was saying "yes, but..."to his arguments, I did prefer to read him.
I think that's a very valid and interesting point.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
And I preferred to read Wright's sections because I thought they were better argued. Borg's warmth even kind of irritated me, as they didn't make up for what I saw as a vague sort of spiritualization of things that I think need to be really real. I'm not skipping brunch in favor of going to church on Sunday mornings for a metaphor.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
Yes. I read and enjoyed his "Speaking Christian" but felt that he completely fudged (hoping that we would not notice) the issue of the Resurrection, leaving us with something that was unhelpful to traditionalists and liberals alike.
All through the book I sort of felt that his heart was really more conservative than his writing, but he didn't want to say so.
[ 28. July 2017, 07:09: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Doublethink. and Golden Key, thanks for your comments. No, this was in the late 1960s, and help of the sort now available was not thought of. At the event, I did receive quite a bit of help from another guest, an opera singer of some renown as he grew older, also gay and alas now dead.
Nor did I do anything about Helpmann. Probably I should have. Again, taking that sort of step was not thought of.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
It is not civil to tell someone they are sinners because of what they are, what they have no control over being.
First, no-one has any control over whether or not they experience SSA, but they do have a choice as to how they respond to that inclination.
Christian disagreement is with behaviour, not orientation.
Secondly, homosexual activity is not more serious than any other of the range of sins which we all commit in response to a range of inclinations.
How did you and your partners choose to respond to falling in love?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
at the end of the day, group membership still one way or another supports the group and its stated doctrines and values.
Is this where your "assigning whole groups of people to second-class status" bit comes in? Just askin'.
I'm not saying any group of people are second-class human beings the way opponents of women's ordination and same-sex marriage do. I'm saying there are groups of people who espouse abhorrent views. I don't feel a need to be polite to them about their views, but I don't regard them as somehow less human than folks in groups I belong to. Opposition to women's ordination and same-sex marriage are both founded on the belief that there is something fundamentally and innately lacking, wrong, or inadequate about some people.
What you're getting at is a more sophisticated version of what Kaplan Corday said, but just as wrong.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
The thing is, nuanced positions on controversial topics don't tend to do much for the lives of people directly affected.
On the other hand, I'm fairly sure turning DH into a liberal echo-chamber* doesn't get anyone ordained, married, or access to abortion either.
quote:
Whether someone is ordained, gets married, or has an abortion --these are all yes-or-no, black-or-white things.
Round here all of those things have ended up in nuanced positions. The Church of England allows women's ordination but has created structures for people who oppose it. Gay marriage is legal but Church of England registrars aren't allowed to perform it. Abortion gets progressively harder the closer the pregnancy comes to term.
You may think all of those nuanced outcomes are daft, but it's false to say they don't exist.
quote:
And consider whether it's okay for someone to have a nuanced position on interracial marriage.
IME, most people do have a nuanced position. Most people would distinguish between, say, anti-miscegenation laws in the US, and endogamous minority groups like Gypsies and Haredi Jews that strongly discourage out-group marriage, even though both positions imply opposition to interracial marriage. Most people would probably see both as wrong but nevertheless draw a moral distinction between the two cases.
* OK I am being a bit hypocritical here in that most of my posts in DH have been making exactly the same point as the overwhelming majority of the Ship, so I am contributing to the dynamic Sarah G describes.
[ 28. July 2017, 08:02: Message edited by: Ricardus ]
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
The thing is, nuanced positions on controversial topics don't tend to do much for the lives of people directly affected.
On the other hand, I'm fairly sure turning DH into a liberal echo-chamber* doesn't get anyone ordained, married, or access to abortion either.
They don't get in the way, though, and nuanced positions can do that.
quote:
quote:
Whether someone is ordained, gets married, or has an abortion --these are all yes-or-no, black-or-white things.
Round here all of those things have ended up in nuanced positions. The Church of England allows women's ordination but has created structures for people who oppose it. Gay marriage is legal but Church of England registrars aren't allowed to perform it. Abortion gets progressively harder the closer the pregnancy comes to term.
You may think all of those nuanced outcomes are daft, but it's false to say they don't exist.
I never said they don't exist. I do think the CofE's positions on women's ordination and same-sex marriage are daft, to say the least. The UK is far more sane on the topic of abortion than the US, by a long shot; I'd love to see here what you have there. You may recall that I said nuanced positions may be problematic - obviously they aren't always. But they can be, and I think the drawn-out mess over women being priests and bishops in the CofE is a great example.
quote:
quote:
And consider whether it's okay for someone to have a nuanced position on interracial marriage.
IME, most people do have a nuanced position. Most people would distinguish between, say, anti-miscegenation laws in the US, and endogamous minority groups like Gypsies and Haredi Jews that strongly discourage out-group marriage, even though both positions imply opposition to interracial marriage. Most people would probably see both as wrong but nevertheless draw a moral distinction between the two cases.
I should have specified that I meant the legality of interracial marriage -- something that in the US has only been cleared up within my lifetime. Or maybe I just should have said nuanced positions on racism, things along the lines of Martin Luther King's interlocutors, the ones who said he needed to be patient and wait.
quote:
* OK I am being a bit hypocritical here in that most of my posts in DH have been making exactly the same point as the overwhelming majority of the Ship, so I am contributing to the dynamic Sarah G describes.
Look at all the conservative/traditional/whatever-label-they-prefer shipmates who have turned out on this thread! Not to mention the centrists. It all makes me want to argue really hard for the leftiest of my positions, something that I haven't really bothered with in a while.
[ 28. July 2017, 08:24: Message edited by: RuthW ]
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
group membership still one way or another supports the group and its stated doctrines and values.
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
opponents of women's ordination and same-sex marriage
There's a subtlety here, which makes me concerned that you are indeed in danger of lumping people into categories. You've shifted seamlessly from a conversation about being part of the group 'traditional christians' to the group 'opponents' of certain rights. There is not total correlation between those groups.
There are many people* who hold certain convictions about personal morality, but don't want to deny any rights to other people. And there are people, who have no religion, who also want to deny rights to other people .
There is a couple in my (Baptist) church who don't believe that women should minister/preach in church. They don't go shouting about it, and they've not 'campaigned' in any way to change church policy, but if the preacher that Sunday is a woman, they simply stay at home. They're involved fully in all sorts of church life and activity. I think they're dead wrong on this issue, but I can't really fault them for the way they go about living by their convictions. Of course, that might change if we ever appointed a full-time female minister.
In terms of LC, I disagree that it was she that made it personal. In particular, I can see how this...
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
You are, like some others on this thread, asking to be allowed to say shitty things about your fellow human beings without having shitty things said to you in return. You want to be treated as a human being even when you are in the very act of advocating that some people be treated as less human than others.
...would have really upset her. In my opinion, though an apt description of some, I simply don't see her in that. If you'd kept it general, I think it would have been fine, but you were talking specifically about her actions and motives.
I haven't ever seen LC advocating that some people be treated as less human than others, and if she's said anything shitty about anyone, it's usually been people off-ship who have done something crap and probably won't read what she's written. Of course, I've not read every post, but if you're going to say that about her, I agree that you should be able to back it up.
Maybe I'm naive in hoping that we can all be like Wright and Borg, but I have great respect for the both of you, so this saddens me.
One final question. For those advocating a more hostile approach, are you bothered about the echo chamber thing? Do you just see it as an unfortunate (or fortunate) result of the quest for truth? Because, like it or not, that is the consequence. We seem to have fewer Dawkinites, conservative Catholics, conservative Evangelicals, minority sect members etc. etc. than when I first read the Ship. And Purgatory seems more heated than it ever was. Hmmm. In dunno. Maybe, like many of you, I just really miss Erin.
* At least, here in the UK there are. My impression is that the US is more polarised.
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
I'm not saying any group of people are second-class human beings the way opponents of women's ordination and same-sex marriage do. I'm saying there are groups of people who espouse abhorrent views.
You think there are groups of people who, irrespective of their attempts to interact, don't deserve the same treatment as everyone else on the sole basis of their views, which you qualify as "abhorrent" - a characterisation which those who hold opposing views to you would doubtless reject. I can't see how functionally, that's any different from seeing them as "less human".
quote:
Opposition to women's ordination and same-sex marriage are both founded on the belief that there is something fundamentally and innately lacking, wrong, or inadequate about some people.
Without thrashing the Dead Horse here, that is simply not true. You make it sound as though these abhorrent view-holders start from a basic premise ("founded on the belief") that some people are basically lacking, wrong, or inadequate, and simply apply that principle to the situations they encounter.
Rarely have I come across anyone who starts from there. They start from other assumptions, some of which may be nobler than you seem willing to give them credit for.
By interacting, politely, with those who are willing to interact, some greater mutual understanding can be achieved - and possibly, some minds changed. Why refuse to do so on principle?
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
I'm not saying any group of people are second-class human beings the way opponents of women's ordination and same-sex marriage do.
Mmm. I don't know about this.
On the one hand, I agree that exclusionary practices in things like Golf clubs seem ridiculously outdated and discriminatory.
But I can't really compute how a religious organisation setting arbitrary rules is really the same thing.
I admit it might just be me and my faulty worldview, but providing the state gives space for others to set up religious groups with alternative and opposite views on (for example) ordination of women or gays or people with one leg or people who look good in silly hats, I can't see that people are somehow generally second-class citizens because for some reason they've got no control over they can't be a religious leader of a specific group.
For example, I can't be the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople. Even if I was Orthodox, I still couldn't. For one thing (AFAIU) one has to be from a Greek minority in Turkey to be chosen.
Does that make me a second-class citizen? Not really. I'm not Orthodox, it doesn't really affect me at all. If I was, I suppose one can imagine a circumstance where it might affect me and make me cross, but I don't think the existence of the rules governing the appointment of the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople actually makes me a second-class citizen.
I suppose what makes the golf example different is that the debate is when they're used for top golf tournaments, so they're not just some bunch of men but representative of the sport as a whole.
And I suppose there is a difference with the CofE in England given it is the state church.
But generally speaking, I think you are exaggerating here.
edit: also I'm not sure that the mere existence of people who think there ought to be rules about who can become certain kinds of religious leaders actually makes me a second-class citizen either.
[ 28. July 2017, 08:53: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
It is not civil to tell someone they are sinners because of what they are, what they have no control over being.
First, no-one has any control over whether or not they experience SSA, but they do have a choice as to how they respond to that inclination.
Christian disagreement is with behaviour, not orientation.
Secondly, homosexual activity is not more serious than any other of the range of sins which we all commit in response to a range of inclinations.
I think this is always the ultimate sticking point in the same sex attraction argument. And I don't think, truly, that Christian disagreement is with behaviour, not orientation.
To some there's nothing wrong with homosexual orientation, so therefore nothing intrinsically wrong with acting on one's orientation. Homosexual intimacy is no more or less sinful than heterosexual intimacy.
To others the orientation is obviously 'wrong', or disordered, or deviant from the norm, so therefore it must not be acted upon.
The clear message then is that what the person is must be wrong and unacceptable. Otherwise why ban them from receiving and giving intimacy, love, companionship, etc? Why uphold a philosophy that homosexual relationships - even life-long, monogamous marriages - are wrong, unless you think that fundamentally the sexuality of the person involved is also wrong? So the problem is with the person, not the actions.
In other words, some folks see two people in a same-sex relationship and their conclusion is; two people choosing consciously to engage in sinful acts, or at best living in ignorance of their sin. And others just see two people in a relationship, who happen to be same-sex attracted (if that's even relevant). It comes down to either/or.
Although there are nuanced responses - from both gay and straight people - about this issue, the bedrock comes down to this: is it sin, or wrong, or isn't it to be homosexual? If there's no issue, per se, with being gay, then relationship rules must surely be the same for both gay and straight (eg, no adultery, no promiscuity, treat your partner as you would wish to be treated etc). But that is clearly not the case.
It is the sexuality of the person that is the issue, not the behaviour of the person.
--------------------
Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Perfect.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
You may recall that I said nuanced positions may be problematic - obviously they aren't always.
I read your post as saying that nuanced positions are either harmful or have no effect on a practical level, and that this is (in part) because when there is a choice of either doing or not doing something then there is no practical scope for nuance.
I agree that nuanced positions can be harmful or ineffective, but I think they can also make things possible that wouldn't otherwise happen.
On the point that the echo-chamber effect doesn't stop gay marriage, women's ordination etc, it could contribute to making them more difficult to achieve if it discourages conservatives who are open to changing their mind from participating.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
And group membership matters. This might be where the nuanced views come in, as someone might be working from within an institution to change it, but at the end of the day, group membership still one way or another supports the group and its stated doctrines and values.
I suppose the question is how important we believe unity is, both as an absolute and relative to the importance of achieving a pure position on issues where achieving that purity would require greater division.
It seems to me that there are an awful lot of things we can't know for sure about God and Jesus, but the fact that God wants those of us who love and acknowledge His Son to be one body seems to me to shine out of the Gospels.
This inevitably is going to mean making some loving compromises. Maybe we're not making the right ones at present. But I'm not sure that greater division is the way forward.
--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
Just to put that in practical terms: I direct the choir in my parish. The choir is very multi-cultural (central-ish London) and therefore I tend to assume there is a spectrum of views on controversial issues.
I recall once the issue of same-sex marriage coming up in conversation with one of the choir. I can't remember what I said, but it must have made it clear that I didn't object to civil same-sex marriage. The soprano in question was shocked. I do remember that I said that since I believe in evolution, I can't embrace any doctrine that requires me to believe that the human race originated from one heterosexual relationship; and she replied that she *did* think we "all came from one man and one woman".
And there we left it. Should I have gone further and potentially created a rift? Or can the two of us co-exist - and make music?
--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gottschalk
Shipmate
# 13175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:
Originally posted by Gottschalk:
The state through a species of taxation seeks to enforce a largely unmonitored, unaccountable system of national sympathy upon us when that money could be channelled directly for the support of local issues.
Could you clarify "species of taxation" and "system of national sympathy" please? I don't understand what you mean by either phrase.
I mean that I would prefer a more devolved, more local approach to taxation and welfare and I am not advocating for total isolationist autarchy. It would be good if people could take decisions about, say, rubbish collection, parking, preservation, schools, transport, etc. instead of it all taking place in Whitehall, or the County/Area Councils. I would like to see a return of powers, both legislative and judicial (more JPs perhaps?) to burgh and parish councils.
--------------------
Gottschalk
Ad bellum exit Ajax
Posts: 157 | From: The Kingdom of Fife | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gottschalk
Shipmate
# 13175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
Just to put that in practical terms: I direct the choir in my parish. The choir is very multi-cultural (central-ish London) and therefore I tend to assume there is a spectrum of views on controversial issues.
I recall once the issue of same-sex marriage coming up in conversation with one of the choir. I can't remember what I said, but it must have made it clear that I didn't object to civil same-sex marriage. The soprano in question was shocked. I do remember that I said that since I believe in evolution, I can't embrace any doctrine that requires me to believe that the human race originated from one heterosexual relationship; and she replied that she *did* think we "all came from one man and one woman".
And there we left it. Should I have gone further and potentially created a rift? Or can the two of us co-exist - and make music?
Blest pair of syrens...of course, you go on making music with others, whether you agree with them or not - music requires, demands and delivers another, perhaps a nobler sort of unity among a wide variety of people holding a wide variety of views.
--------------------
Gottschalk
Ad bellum exit Ajax
Posts: 157 | From: The Kingdom of Fife | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gottschalk:
It would be good if people could take decisions about, say, rubbish collection, parking, preservation, schools, transport, etc. instead of it all taking place in Whitehall, or the County/Area Councils. I would like to see a return of powers, both legislative and judicial (more JPs perhaps?) to burgh and parish councils.
Waste collection and treatment need skills and economies of scale which are not possible at a parish council level.
This is nonsense.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
I encountered the homosexuality is a sin therefore one must not only hate the sin but also regard the sinner as being intrinsically sinful because they are disordered argument recently and was flabbergasted since it was being put forward by someone who has 2 severely physically handicapped children who has had to fight for them to have access to treatment, decent wheelchairs, schools, etc, etc, etc.
So I put it to them that the view that discriminating against homosexuals on the basis that they are 'disordered' was akin to it being OK to discriminate against her children because they were 'disformed': harsh, I know, but this happened after she walked up to the adult child of one of our choir and straight out said that she thought they shouldn't be in church or taking communion because they are sinful and a sinner.
So far no other response other than a brisk its not the same thing at all and since then silence.
Now I understand she wants to bring a motion to the PCC that people who are "obvious sinners living against God's word" be banned from receiving communion. Where to begin...
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gottschalk:
...of course, you go on making music with others, whether you agree with them or not - music requires, demands and delivers another, perhaps a nobler sort of unity among a wide variety of people holding a wide variety of views.
As does the Church.
(We hope)
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
Isn't there something in the rubric about people who are not in good relationships with others which would cover the denial of communion to people who put forward motions like that? Not that I would want to see communion denied to anyone, of course.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gottschalk
Shipmate
# 13175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Gottschalk:
It would be good if people could take decisions about, say, rubbish collection, parking, preservation, schools, transport, etc. instead of it all taking place in Whitehall, or the County/Area Councils. I would like to see a return of powers, both legislative and judicial (more JPs perhaps?) to burgh and parish councils.
Waste collection and treatment need skills and economies of scale which are not possible at a parish council level.
This is nonsense.
You obviously no nothing of the issues regarding waste collection we've been through in my town and I am not denying there are aspects of the problem - treatment and the actual recycling - that can only be solved with larger resources and infrastructure. However, for the small decisions like when, where, and how collection is made - things that do not impact on treatment- we should be able to decide.
Wheelie bins and associated predicaments have been the bane of many townsfolk, not least the aged. I was not just dreaming something up, I'll have you know!
Anyway I feel you are not really interested by your virtue of your dismissal of the entire idea based on one aspect of the problem.
--------------------
Gottschalk
Ad bellum exit Ajax
Posts: 157 | From: The Kingdom of Fife | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gottschalk:
You obviously no nothing of the issues regarding waste collection we've been through in my town and I am not denying there are aspects of the problem - treatment and the actual recycling - that can only be solved with larger resources and infrastructure. However, for the small decisions like when, where, and how collection is made - things that do not impact on treatment- we should be able to decide.
Why should you? Why should you have the right to determine bin collection in your village outwith of the impact it might have on the rest of the borough and the systems set up to handle the waste?
Given that you don't even take part in the political process, why should anyone take any notice of you shouting about the rights of your parish council?
quote:
Wheelie bins and associated predicaments have been the bane of many townsfolk, not least the aged. I was not just dreaming something up, I'll have you know!
Anyway I feel you are not really interested by your virtue of your dismissal of the entire idea based on one aspect of the problem.
I feel that you are inclined to want to have-your-cake-and-eat-it so you're right, I'm not interest in your wheely bin related predicaments.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gottschalk
Shipmate
# 13175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Gottschalk:
You obviously no nothing of the issues regarding waste collection we've been through in my town and I am not denying there are aspects of the problem - treatment and the actual recycling - that can only be solved with larger resources and infrastructure. However, for the small decisions like when, where, and how collection is made - things that do not impact on treatment- we should be able to decide.
Why should you? Why should you have the right to determine bin collection in your village outwith of the impact it might have on the rest of the borough and the systems set up to handle the waste?
Given that you don't even take part in the political process, why should anyone take any notice of you shouting about the rights of your parish council?
quote:
Wheelie bins and associated predicaments have been the bane of many townsfolk, not least the aged. I was not just dreaming something up, I'll have you know!
Anyway I feel you are not really interested by your virtue of your dismissal of the entire idea based on one aspect of the problem.
I feel that you are inclined to want to have-your-cake-and-eat-it so you're right, I'm not interest in your wheely bin related predicaments.
So those who do not participate in the political process, should have no opinions, especially when they're not interested in imposing their opinions on others?
I can only leave you in your own little cloud-cuckoo fascistic land of fallacies, bile, invective and condescension.
--------------------
Gottschalk
Ad bellum exit Ajax
Posts: 157 | From: The Kingdom of Fife | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
How the hell have we got here from the OP?
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hiro's Leap
Shipmate
# 12470
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I, as an Orthodox Christian, have often found this to be true here. I will post something on a thread and have it completely ignored. If you (generic you) think it's wrong at least give me the courtesy of saying how.
Fair enough.
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
There are some who will overreact and over-associate. I see this when there are disagreements, but not strictly limited to a left/right divide.
Hey lilBuddha. Not sure if this was addressed to me, but if so...
I'm not criticising the left in particular for this, nor the Ship. I was simply pointing out what I believe is one mechanism (of many) that polarises us online. My first post in this thread was about another mechanism: as a community starts to tilt in one direction, the moderates from the opposition face more hostility so they drift away, and the more stubborn/aggressive ones become more visible; rinse and repeat.
My evidence for either of these was mostly what I've experienced and watched happen to others. Confirmation bias is no doubt lurking at times.
Ultimately I'm not worried about the Ship - it's just one website, and there are still interesting conversations on it. It's good to have its drift leftwards confirmed in this thread, but I'm not sure what can be done, or if anything should be done.
My main issue is that in the last decade or so our society has become increasingly divided and angry, that it's only getting worse, and that social media is driving a lot of the tension. The left and right seem to be feeding off each other's hatred, and it's happening at precisely at the point when we need to co-operate to deal with new problems like climate change.
Posts: 3418 | From: UK, OK | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gottschalk:
So those who do not participate in the political process, should have no opinions, especially when they're not interested in imposing their opinions on others?
I'm sure you have local councillors who are tasked to provide you with assistance in these matters, but you've gone way beyond that by saying (a) that you don't participate in the political process but (b) you have a political idea whereby decisions are made on a microscopic level in some kind of feudal system where presumably you are (or want to be) a JP and get some kind of deference.
quote:
I can only leave you in your own little cloud-cuckoo fascistic land of fallacies, bile, invective and condescension.
And you don't like being challenged, do you.
[ 28. July 2017, 11:31: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gottschalk
Shipmate
# 13175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Gottschalk:
So those who do not participate in the political process, should have no opinions, especially when they're not interested in imposing their opinions on others?
I'm sure you have local councillors who are tasked to provide you with assistance in these matters, but you've gone way beyond that by saying (a) that you don't participate in the political process but (b) you have a political idea whereby decisions are made on a microscopic level in some kind of feudal system where presumably you are (or want to be) a JP and get some kind of deference.
quote:
I can only leave you in your own little cloud-cuckoo fascistic land of fallacies, bile, invective and condescension.
And you don't like being challenged, do you.
I am opened to be challenged when it is supported by reasons and argumentation. In your previous post you just dismissed what I said as nonsense without the benefit of argumentation.
--------------------
Gottschalk
Ad bellum exit Ajax
Posts: 157 | From: The Kingdom of Fife | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gottschalk
Shipmate
# 13175
|
Posted
@MrCheesy
You're still not giving me any reasons but are instead mounting a bill of presumptions. And I am not a JP. So, instead of imagining motives for my ideas, is it really beyond your power to discuss their merits alone, without always committing ad hominem and a host of other fallacies? Merits of the argument, not those (imagined, for you do not know me) the person!
[ 28. July 2017, 11:38: Message edited by: Gottschalk ]
--------------------
Gottschalk
Ad bellum exit Ajax
Posts: 157 | From: The Kingdom of Fife | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
My main issue is that in the last decade or so our society has become increasingly divided and angry, that it's only getting worse, and that social media is driving a lot of the tension. The left and right seem to be feeding off each other's hatred, and it's happening at precisely at the point when we need to co-operate to deal with new problems like climate change.
Would that be since the "Credit crunch" when the greed of the banks became a burden for the general population? Any state that put the same amount into job creation schemes as was used to prop up the banks would have been accused of blood-red Communism.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gottschalk:
@MrCheesy
You're still not giving me no reasons but instead mounting a bill of presumptions. And I am not a JP. So, instead of imagining motives for my ideas, is it really beyond your power to discuss their merits alone?
You clearly have stacks of energy and a desire to Do Some Good on your own account so why not get on a governing body for a school (they are crying out for them) or become a JP (ditto). If you're young and active enough the Scouting movement needs people too.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
