Sarah wrote: > I do condemn any institution that promotes the idea that the whole is > greater than the sum of its parts, and that perfectly natural > behaviour is "wicked". For me, that is most religions (I would say > that Judaism might be the exception here) and some forms of government.
Vince wrote: This is to me so incredibly judgmental and frightening. It begs the question of whether "most religions" or a particular religion actually do promote the idea that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. It begs the question of whether of the idea of the whole being greater than the sum of the parts is in itself a concept worthy of condemnation. And it total discounts the fact that for different people, there will be diversity of experience here. What one person experiences one way, another person will experience another. And the experiences of all people are valid, as all people are valid. My reply: I do condemn any institution that covers up child abuse, of any kind. When the reputation of that institution (the whole) becomes more important than the safety or health ( the parts) than it should be condemned. That is not condemning the religious belief of any one or any thing. Vince: Where is the tolerance in condemning others? Where is the respect - which you crave - when you condemn others, and what others believe? Do others have a right to condemn you if they disagree? If everyone is going around condemning, where is the ability to have a future free from hostility, hate, and disrespect? Diversity and respect rests in saying "there are a set of views which personally I find untrue to my life experience and so I will not hold them, but I respect others who do hold those views because it may be true to their life experience and each of us is free to hold those beliefs because each of us has the right to hold beliefs without being condemned." Intolerance is in saying "I condemn (not disagree with, not respectfully differ from, not critique according to these academic standards, but *condemn*) any religious or political science teaching that disagrees with what I have chosen to be the universal standard. Me: Vince tolerance is not your strong suit. Just last week you wrote some hateful things to me about an opinion you thought was mine. You even accused me of playing mind games. You did not ask what I meant you assumed what I felt and jumped. Even if it had been my opinion where was your tolerance of my opinion? Sarah is speaking of the Church as an institution, not attacking a religion. Vince: Are there wacky nuns and priests out there who have done wacky things that we know of in our own experience? Yes of course. Are there adherents of that faith group that have sexually abused children? Yes there are. Does that apply to the whole? Let me be blunt: no fucking way. If you believe that, then the logical extension is that all atheists have never been wacky, or that atheists have never sexually abused children. And reality rejects that logical extension. me: No one has said that all, or even the majority of nuns or priest behave this way. What is being said, is the institution knew of this, covered it up, and did not remove the offenders. Vince: What you wrote, Sarah, is that Catholicism is evil but you do not condemn individual catholics who do not believe much of what their faith teaches. What you say is that Islam is evil but you do not condemn individual Moslems who do not believe much of what their faith teaches. And I can only say, in light of my own human experience, what incredible arrogance to set yourself up as judge of others religions. The sins of history are rooted in that type of thinking, as I have experienced history. Me: This is funny, you say she is arrogant to set herself up as judge, yet you have judged her as arrogant. You have said she is judging a religion, but I see her as speaking out against an institution. You are saying how she feels about religion, not her. Much like you said how I felt about abortion. You are making assumptions and then judging people for it. Vince: I close - finally! - be speaking frankly. Sarah, if you had said, "in my own experience, I find there are certain thinks that I strenuously object to in this or that or the other and thus I cannot be this or that or the other, but I know that I do not have access to the whole reality or the whole understanding of every other person so I will respect those whose insights, experiences, and realities are different than mine" then none of this conversation would be happening. Me: In other words in order to be respected you must choose words that are acceptable to others, and not your own. Vince: Yours is a very lonely ideology. I pity you, actually. Vince It is rhetoric like this that kept me away from God for many years. I am not an expert on religion. But I believe with my whole being that I will not be judged by how many books on God I've read, but rather on how I lived the life S/He gave me. You aren't condemning Sarah, but you are condescending, and imho intolerant of her views. KaseyGet more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com
