Dana
> Of course slamming someone's religion doesn't make you a bad person.
> Heck, I slam religion in general all the time, but I am not EEVIL, its
> just something I don't get and don't care for. But if you dish it
> out, you should expect to receive.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: dana tierney
> To: CF-Community
> Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 2004 4:16 PM
> Subject: Re: ben
>
>
> I think the problem is that some people here do not see it as a slam.
> Too close to what they too have been taught perhaps. I do not know. I
> have many times seen these dogmas come from the mouths of people I do
> believe are good people...
>
> Dana
>
> > If you post an article or an essay slamming someone elses' religion,
>
> > you should expect to be criticized for it. If you can't stand the
> > heat, get out of the kitchen.
>
> > ----- Original Message -----
>
> > From: dana tierney
>
> > To: CF-Community
>
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 2004 12:14 PM
>
> > Subject: Re: ben
> >
> >
>
> > mm well I dont want to reinflame the argument. I don't say I think
> > Mike's reaction was the most tactful, or the most useful, just that
> I
> > agree with it.
> >
>
> > I read that essay and thought oh christ, more of this stuff. Frankly,
>
> > it is very offensive -- I was being polite before. I find it
> offensive
> > when an ancient, complex and shaded belief system is portrayed as
> some
> > cartoonish cult that worships statues. Yeah, that's us. Us and the
> > cargo cults. We think everything is God, when we aren't buggering
> > altar boys, that is. I don't want to belittle the pedophilia issue
> but
> > to bring it up as an indictment of the entire belief system is akin
> to
> > saying that the Baptist faith is obviously morally bankrupt, because
>
> > George Bush belongs to it. It is a fallacy.
> >
>
> > Nor was the initial essay framed in terms of questions, as in, I
> have
> > heard this... it was *telling* me that a faith the writer clearly
> does
> > not understand is ignorant and sinful and a "falling away" from some
>
> > truth that the writer's church claims to know. I don't want to go
> > fishing in the text for examples -- really, reading it made me feel
>
> > unclean -- but no, I would say hate speech is not too strong a word.
>
> >
>
> > I think the important thing though is that he was listening to Will,
>
> > and so did not deserve the accusation of narrow-mindedness. He did
> not
> > mean to be offensive and was willing to take another look at what he
>
> > had posted.
> >
>
> > Dana
> >
>
> > > Tired of hearing it I can understand, but "Hate Speech"?
>
> > >
>
> > > I am not saying you don't have a right to feel that way, but I
> don't
> >
>
> > > see how the bullet points, in answer to a direct question by
> others
> > on
>
> > > the list, can be construed as hateful.
>
> > >
>
> > > At the very most, it may have been ignorant, but that deserves
>
> > > education, not anger.
>
> > >
>
> > > IMHO, Will took the right approach and added to our collective
>
> > > knowledge.
>
> > >
>
> > > Jerry Johnson
>
> > >
>
> > > >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 05/05/04 01:17PM >>>
>
> > > I find the whole thing unfortunate. I actually agree with
> everything
> >
>
> > > Mike Haggerty said. I too get extremely tired of hearing that
> stuff
> >
>
> > > and even calling it hate language was not much of a reach. I
> suppose
> >
>
> > > that I should mention that I was raised as a very traditional
> > Catholic
>
> > > and still occasionally attend mass. Will Bowen did a pretty good
> job
> >
>
> > > of refuting the points.
>
> > >
>
> > > Ben appeared to be trying to hold a reasonable discussion and
> should
> >
>
> > > not have been slapped down for that I don't guess...
>
> > >
>
> > > Dana
>
> > >
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
