Hi Majken, On 29/12/14 18:00, Majken Connor wrote: > I don't know whether the disclaimer is what Mike is talking about, though I > think it does obviously let people know right up front that you'll be > talking about Christianity, though I don't think it really does a good job > of describing what you'll say.
Hmm. Perhaps my topic drifted as I wrote. I'll need to bear that in mind. > However, this post would be in violation of > the guidelines anyway as it is clearly a position statement. We should discuss that more, then. This post is part of an ongoing discussion within the community; I think people would think it unfair if the rule was "when people start talking about religion, the religious people have to shut up." > Also I think this post is a really great example of why *you* always get > into trouble when you talk about your faith. You literally refuse to > discuss the matter from the perspective that it is your belief and that > others beliefs are equally valid. You in fact insist on talking about > Christianity because all other religions are "false." I'm not sure what you expect me to do differently. That's what I believe. If someone said to you "Majken, the problem with your writing about feminism is that you refuse to discuss the matter from the perspective that other beliefs, like the idea that women are second class citizens, are equally valid", then you would think that a ridiculous point. And rightly so. > You hijacked a very good way of putting things, and took it back to the > extreme that makes people uncomfortable and even upset. I would only say that the mantle of victimhood does not sit well when there are a small handful of Christians and literally thousands of non-Christians in the Mozilla community. > A disclaimer isn't > going to fix that. You did the same thing to me in a discussion last year. > I was sharing an idea that *had been* well received about borrowing > organizational best practices from religious organizations. You took the > opportunity to start talking about your faith instead and then no one > wanted to touch that discussion with a 10 ft pole. I'm really sorry that my attempts to support your point didn't have that effect. But where is the issue here? Is it with the person who tried to support you out of your own experience, or with the people who said "whoa, the religious guy agrees with this idea, therefore it's toxic"? In logic, that's called the genetic fallacy - assessing an idea based on whose idea it was or who promotes it rather than whether it's good in itself or not. We should encourage people not to do that. > I think that we can make a nice policy, but at the end of the day, I think > *you* need to not talk about religion in Mozilla. Either you do not know > how or you are unwilling to discuss it in a way that is respectful and > inclusive of others and other beliefs. I deny that asserting other people are wrong about something means one cannot be respectful or inclusive. I hope you are respectful of me (you certainly act that way :-), and we disagree on many things. A rule based on the above would be equivalent to "only pluralists can say anything on this topic". I would gently suggest you need to be more tolerant of people who think differently from you. > Disclaimer of my own: I'm sharing those sentiments on this list because a) > I know you will not be upset that I shared them publicly, and that you will > even prefer not to make the discussion private Sure. I would much rather we discussed this like adults in public than people went off in a grump in private. Gerv _______________________________________________ governance mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
