Re: Wife's suggestion!
On Sep 22, 2009, at 7:48 PM, David Hobby wrote: The Christian nation bit rubs me the wrong way too. Probably because I've heard it used to justify things I strongly disagree with. ---David One last comment on my wife's suggestion and I think we may have exhausted this thread. It was prompted by both the news coverage of recent events and by email exchanges with old high school friends in West Texas. We live in Austin, TX so if you are at all familiar with Texas politics you can imagine the positions of the two parties. The Christian Nation line was targeted at those like her friends in West Texas. She is well aware that the Constitution calls for the separation of Church and State and for good reason. learner ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Wife's suggestion!
On 24/09/2009, at 12:35 AM, Chris Frandsen wrote: On Sep 22, 2009, at 7:48 PM, David Hobby wrote: The Christian nation bit rubs me the wrong way too. Probably because I've heard it used to justify things I strongly disagree with. ---David One last comment on my wife's suggestion and I think we may have exhausted this thread. It was prompted by both the news coverage of recent events and by email exchanges with old high school friends in West Texas. We live in Austin, TX so if you are at all familiar with Texas politics you can imagine the positions of the two parties. The Christian Nation line was targeted at those like her friends in West Texas. Hence my comment further back about framing. Basically, posting it here was right message, wrong place if you wanted people to go ooh, good idea - in this particular forum of mostly respectful argue about EVERYTHING any sort of pandering to one view, even allusionally, is bound to get dissected. But I do agree it's the right message. Charlie. Mostly Civil And How Dare You Say Otherwise, You Bastards Maru ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Wife's suggestion!
Chris wrote: One last comment on my wife's suggestion and I think we may have exhausted this thread. No!!! I'm still getting caught up and haven't found the original post. Add to that I get the digest, and I might have .02 to add. =+)) And what's a Jaffa cake? Amities, Jo Anne evens...@hevanet.com ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Wife's suggestion!
On 24/09/2009, at 7:08 AM, Jo Anne wrote: And what's a Jaffa cake? A kind of biccie (or possibly a cake?). A sort of sponge base with an orangey bit and a chocalate covering on one side. :) Charlie. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Wife's suggestion!
Dave wrote: Amen, brother! I think that the harsh immune response from some quarters to the merest mention of religion is a symptom of our general inability to be generous, kind, civil, open and _listening_. Yes but, calling the U.S. a Christian nation is a little beyond the merest mention. That said, I agree with the tenor of the message forwarded by Chris. I've been disturbed enough by the hate speech from the right; Beck, Limbaugh et al, that I've considered taking some sort of action to express my displeasure. This is the only constructive thing I've found so far: http://colorofchange.org/ If anyone knows of any similar campaigns I'd be interested in checking them out. Doug ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Wife's suggestion!
On 22/09/2009, at 7:57 AM, Chris Frandsen wrote: A referral to Religion without being specific often sparks a response on this list. Sure, but this isn't one of those times. Asking non-Christians and Christians alike to be more civil is one thing - civility in discourse is one thing. But what you forwarded was specifically saying we should ask What would Jesus do? and to the millions of non-Christians in your nation and elsewhere that's meaningless at best. My wife is not a follower so she did not write this with this illustrious group in mind. Guys, I suggest taking her to task on this is part of the problem. There are many out there with religious beliefs be they Christian or otherwise. Being civil means respecting their beliefs though not necessarily accepting them. Being civil has nothing to do with respecting beliefs. Being civil means not being unnecessarily offensive while pointing out where beliefs are damaging our societies. Some beliefs deserve ZERO respect (creationism, anti-vaccinationism etc). However playing to Christian beliefs if it helps frame a debate in a way they'll understand can be useful and help keep the tone civil. But the way I see it, if someone is lying about you or something you do or say or believe, as so many in the lunatic fringe that has such a disproportionately loud voice in American politics do - Coulter, Limbaugh, Beck, then call them on it. Don't pander. Call them on it, and then move on by. I agree with Bruce that in general lessons ascribed to Jesus are about love and acceptance of the other. That's the widely perceived view of them, yes. Doesn't totally hold water if you actually read the New Testament, but yes - if people tried to act a bit nicer to each other we'd be better off. Charlie. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Wife's suggestion!
On Sep 22, 2009, at 1:36 AM, Doug Pensinger wrote: Yes but, calling the U.S. a Christian nation is a little beyond the merest mention. More than a little, although in this case, the usage didn't seem to be malicious. The origin of that phrase is a multilayered equivocation on the part of certain right-wing religious movements whose doctrine involves a fundamental rejection of even the concept of separation of church and state, and the equivocation is both in the glossed-over distinction in meaning between nation composed mostly of Christians (true) and nation whose government rests on, and is meant solely to promote and enforce, Christianity as a state religion (false, but an often intended misinterpretation), and the equally glossed-over distinction between the broadest and narrowest possible definitions of Christian. Ultimately, it's a code-phrase, one that means very different things to the in-group that uses it as a rallying point than it does to those outside that group, and the resulting confusion is by design, at least at the origin. And it's often repeated by people outside the group without a full understanding of the memes it belongs to and the agenda those memes serve. As I believe happened in this case. That said, I agree with the tenor of the message forwarded by Chris. As do I. Whatever the language used or the associations it might have, to me, the underlying message was clearly a call for civility, empathy, and compassion for others, whether we agree with them or not, and I am completely in agreement with that message. I've been disturbed enough by the hate speech from the right; Beck, Limbaugh et al, that I've considered taking some sort of action to express my displeasure. The worrisome thing to me about voices like Beck and Limbaugh is that they're symptoms, not root causes. There are far more hateful people in this country than the ones we hear on right-wing talk radio. (Radio is nothing compared to what circulates via viral chain-email back channels on the right wing.) Neither Beck nor Limbaugh would be on the radio at all if they didn't draw listeners by telling them what they want to hear. And it's their audiences that worry me, because the fact that guys like Beck or Limbaugh make money doing what they do is a clear sign that those beliefs are already out there. No, I'm disagreeing with you. That doesn't mean I'm not listening to you or understanding what you're saying. I'm doing all three at the same time. -- Toby Ziegler ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Wife's suggestion!
On Sep 22, 2009, at 3:20 AM, Charlie Bell wrote: On 22/09/2009, at 7:57 AM, Chris Frandsen wrote: A referral to Religion without being specific often sparks a response on this list. Sure, but this isn't one of those times. Asking non-Christians and Christians alike to be more civil is one thing - civility in discourse is one thing. But what you forwarded was specifically saying we should ask What would Jesus do? and to the millions of non-Christians in your nation and elsewhere that's meaningless at best. Charlie, I think you are being a bit defensive here. First her message was as much to those that claim to be Christians than anyone else so the question is appropriate to that audience and of course he is considered as a prophet to millions of other religions followers My wife is not a follower so she did not write this with this illustrious group in mind. Guys, I suggest taking her to task on this is part of the problem. There are many out there with religious beliefs be they Christian or otherwise. Being civil means respecting their beliefs though not necessarily accepting them. Being civil has nothing to do with respecting beliefs. Being civil means not being unnecessarily offensive while pointing out where beliefs are damaging our societies. Some beliefs deserve ZERO respect (creationism, anti-vaccinationism etc). However playing to Christian beliefs if it helps frame a debate in a way they'll understand can be useful and help keep the tone civil. One of the ideals behind the foundation of this country was religious freedom. To me that means that we respect the right of an individual to have his/her own religious beliefs. Another principal was the separation of church and state. I think it is appropriate to point out when religion crosses that line but not by attacking the beliefs themselves. learner ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Wife's suggestion!
On 22/09/2009, at 11:24 PM, Chris Frandsen wrote: Being civil has nothing to do with respecting beliefs. Being civil means not being unnecessarily offensive while pointing out where beliefs are damaging our societies. Some beliefs deserve ZERO respect (creationism, anti-vaccinationism etc). However playing to Christian beliefs if it helps frame a debate in a way they'll understand can be useful and help keep the tone civil. One of the ideals behind the foundation of this country was religious freedom. To me that means that we respect the right of an individual to have his/her own religious beliefs. Respecting that right, and respecting the belief is not the same thing. I'll defend vigorously the right of someone to believe and claim the earth is 6000 years old, even as I'm ridiculing that belief as stupid. But I'll do it politely... Another principal was the separation of church and state. I think it is appropriate to point out when religion crosses that line but not by attacking the beliefs themselves. I disagree strongly. Some beliefs are stupid and wrong. Attacking stupid ideas is vital to our progress. We've been far too accommodating to daft ideas in recent years. But always addressing the idea and not the person is equally vital, as long as they're doing the same courtesy. Charlie. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Wife's suggestion!
On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 1:20 AM, Charlie Bell char...@culturelist.orgwrote: That's the widely perceived view of them, yes. Doesn't totally hold water if you actually read the New Testament, but yes - if people tried to act a bit nicer to each other we'd be better off. I know what you mean, I think, but I've stopped using the word nice to describe it. I know churches that are perfectly nice to gays, for example, but in doing so pretty much fail to accept them. Sort of a welcome to our church, we're glad to have you here and we're certain that you're going to hell. Except that the last sentence is implied, not spoken aloud. I guess another way to say what I'm saying is that hypocrisy and self-righteousness can be extremely nice, and I find the combination to be not only irritating, but destructive to community. There's a passive-aggressiveness present. I'd rather call on people to be real, rather than nice, I suppose. Nick ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Wife's suggestion!
On 23/09/2009, at 1:46 AM, Nick Arnett wrote: I know what you mean, I think, but I've stopped using the word nice to describe it. I know churches that are perfectly nice to gays, for example, but in doing so pretty much fail to accept them. Sort of a welcome to our church, we're glad to have you here and we're certain that you're going to hell. Except that the last sentence is implied, not spoken aloud. I guess another way to say what I'm saying is that hypocrisy and self-righteousness can be extremely nice, and I find the combination to be not only irritating, but destructive to community. There's a passive-aggressiveness present. Well, I guess that's better than the lynchings. But I hear you. C. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Wife's suggestion!
We started with a plea for civility and niceness. Because it invoked religion and the name of Jesus, the thread was promptly taken over by those who felt it their bounden duty to object to the Christian content - not on the grunds that they were not Christian, but because they consider it their bounden duty to attack Christianity whenever and wherever they see it, apparently, as evil, superstitious, and whatever else they object to. This is not civil - it is clean contrary to what was wanted - and in the name of the Maiden, Mother, and Crone, must a polite request that people be polite be taken over by the rabid culture warriors? Gaah. http://idiotgrrl.livejournal.com/ Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 08:46:21 -0700 Subject: Re: Wife's suggestion! From: nick.arn...@gmail.com To: brin-l@mccmedia.com On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 1:20 AM, Charlie Bell char...@culturelist.org wrote: That's the widely perceived view of them, yes. Doesn't totally hold water if you actually read the New Testament, but yes - if people tried to act a bit nicer to each other we'd be better off. I know what you mean, I think, but I've stopped using the word nice to describe it. I know churches that are perfectly nice to gays, for example, but in doing so pretty much fail to accept them. Sort of a welcome to our church, we're glad to have you here and we're certain that you're going to hell. Except that the last sentence is implied, not spoken aloud. I guess another way to say what I'm saying is that hypocrisy and self-righteousness can be extremely nice, and I find the combination to be not only irritating, but destructive to community. There's a passive-aggressiveness present. I'd rather call on people to be real, rather than nice, I suppose. Nick ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Wife's suggestion!
Folks, I admire the work done by the Public Conversations Project: http://publicconversations.org/ Their purpose is to facilitate conversations about hotly contested issues, training leaders and participants to avoid position-taking and recitation of talking-points and focus instead on building relationships among people whose views differ widely. Their first FAQ covers it nicely: Are dialogue participants expected to change their minds? No, and participants' core beliefs rarely change. Dialogue surfaces new information that softens stereotypes and leads to more accurate understanding of participants' hopes, fears, life experiences, and values. Participants often say their views have been deepened and enriched through dialogues with those who think differently. Without changing their core beliefs, participants' views of one another do typically change. I think it is their focus on transforming how participants —- who usually come in with opposing views on some of the most intractable issues in the world —- view each other (rather than getting them to change their positions) that is their greatest contribution to civil dialog. Dave ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Wife's suggestion!
On Sep 22, 2009, at 3:20 AM, Charlie Bell wrote: I agree with Bruce that in general lessons ascribed to Jesus are about love and acceptance of the other. That's the widely perceived view of them, yes. Doesn't totally hold water if you actually read the New Testament, but yes - if people tried to act a bit nicer to each other we'd be better off. The New Testament comes from a variety of sources and at least a couple of major generations of editing and translation, though. See the research done by the Jesus Seminar, which did a lot of work on tracking down authenticity of the gospel texts virtually word by word, with interesting and somewhat revealing results. Among other things, there were some appallingly bad translators working for King James, and one in particular whose work was of such poor quality that they could actually trace which passages he worked on by characteristic errors. (Camel through the eye of a needle was one of his more spectacular goofs.) There was also a lot of content rejected from the canonical Bible around the time Christianity ceased to be an underground religion and became an official state religion, under Constantine, most notably at the First Council of Nicaea, and a lot of the content that *was* included tended to be more supportive of the idea of centralized church authority, based on surviving examples of books omitted from the canonical version. So, I find the New Testament less than authoritative as a whole in terms of how well it conveys the message. Others may disagree. There are entire dissertations' worth of theological discussion under this rock, though, and a lot of the subject is rather controversial, particularly within circles where belief in the literal truth of the entire Bible is an article of faith. But that's the tip of the iceberg .. Almost nothing that trickles down is fit to consume. -- Davidson Loehr ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Wife's suggestion!
On Sep 22, 2009, at 10:46 AM, Nick Arnett wrote: On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 1:20 AM, Charlie Bell char...@culturelist.org wrote: That's the widely perceived view of them, yes. Doesn't totally hold water if you actually read the New Testament, but yes - if people tried to act a bit nicer to each other we'd be better off. I know what you mean, I think, but I've stopped using the word nice to describe it. I know churches that are perfectly nice to gays, for example, but in doing so pretty much fail to accept them. Sort of a welcome to our church, we're glad to have you here and we're certain that you're going to hell. Except that the last sentence is implied, not spoken aloud. I guess another way to say what I'm saying is that hypocrisy and self-righteousness can be extremely nice, and I find the combination to be not only irritating, but destructive to community. There's a passive-aggressiveness present. I'd rather call on people to be real, rather than nice, I suppose. Nick I suppose it comes down to a distinction between a largely superficial pleasantness in discourse, which is what it seems like you're getting at there, and more substantive civility which involves some form of acceptance and a baseline level of respect, aside from philosophical disagreements .. Oh yeah? Well, I speak LOOOUD, and I carry a BEEEger stick -- and I use it too! **whop!** -- Yosemite Sam ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Wife's suggestion!
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 3:20 PM, Michael Harney dolp...@mikes3dgallery.comwrote: Oh, as for an example of Jesus not respectfully disagreeing, call to your recollection what Jesus did to the vendors in the temple. I believe it had something to do with shouting, throwing over tables, smashing merchandise and even wielding a whip. It's been a while though, so I may be a little cloudy on the details. This is the first thing I thought of too when I saw this thread. But I do agree with the general sentiment. Just when you think things can't possibly get any more nasty, they do. It makes Dr. Brin's prediction after the 2000 elections all the more prescient. - jmh ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Wife's suggestion!
On 23/09/2009, at 2:37 AM, Pat Mathews wrote: We started with a plea for civility and niceness. Because it invoked religion and the name of Jesus, the thread was promptly taken over by those who felt it their bounden duty to object to the Christian content - not on the grunds that they were not Christian, but because they consider it their bounden duty to attack Christianity whenever and wherever they see it, apparently, as evil, superstitious, and whatever else they object to. This is not civil Um. No, ascribing false motive to others and lumping all objecters together is not civil. Arguing whether something is effective because it invokes What would Jesus do? is not the same as attacking Christianity. Charlie. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Wife's suggestion!
If I was uncivil, I apologize. I said what it appeared to me to be, but I may be wrong. At any rate, this was addressed, not to those who considered the plea ineffective, but those who began religious arguments. Pat http://idiotgrrl.livejournal.com/ Subject: Re: Wife's suggestion! From: char...@culturelist.org Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 08:24:50 +1000 To: brin-l@mccmedia.com On 23/09/2009, at 2:37 AM, Pat Mathews wrote: We started with a plea for civility and niceness. Because it invoked religion and the name of Jesus, the thread was promptly taken over by those who felt it their bounden duty to object to the Christian content - not on the grunds that they were not Christian, but because they consider it their bounden duty to attack Christianity whenever and wherever they see it, apparently, as evil, superstitious, and whatever else they object to. This is not civil Um. No, ascribing false motive to others and lumping all objecters together is not civil. Arguing whether something is effective because it invokes What would Jesus do? is not the same as attacking Christianity. Charlie. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Wife's suggestion!
On 23/09/2009, at 8:26 AM, Pat Mathews wrote: If I was uncivil, I apologize. I said what it appeared to me to be, but I may be wrong. At any rate, this was addressed, not to those who considered the plea ineffective, but those who began religious arguments. Well, this is a list where we could start a pretty indepth discussion on whether Jaffa Cakes are biscuits or cakes (um, I'm agnostic on this). So I don't think it's entirely surprising if someone posts something, then you're going to get a range of responses from complete agreement to complaints that the idea is based on faulty premise, whatever the content. Especially as a large portion of the members of this list live in other places... Anyway, it's a gorgeous morning in Melbourne, if a little windy, so I'm going to hop on the bike and ride along the creek trail to work (about 10 miles/16 km rather than the usual 10km direct route). Dust storm in Sydney though. If it rains next they'll all be covered in red mud. Charlie. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Wife's suggestion!
Charlie Bell wrote: On 23/09/2009, at 8:26 AM, Pat Mathews wrote: If I was uncivil, I apologize. I said what it appeared to me to be, but I may be wrong. At any rate, this was addressed, not to those who considered the plea ineffective, but those who began religious arguments. Well, this is a list where we could start a pretty indepth discussion on whether Jaffa Cakes are biscuits or cakes (um, I'm agnostic on this). So Charlie-- Just to prove your point, I'll say they're cookies. (Which are not biscuits, since those are typically made with buttermilk. : ) ) The Christian nation bit rubs me the wrong way too. Probably because I've heard it used to justify things I strongly disagree with. ---David Mr Potter ruled that the Jaffa Cake is a cake. McVities therefore won the case and VAT is not paid on Jaffa Cakes. --Wikipedia ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Wife's suggestion!
On Sep 21, 2009, at 2:09 PM, Chris Frandsen relayed: Bottom line—We profess to be a Christian nation. It is appropriate to ask, “What would Jesus say and do?” I imagine he disagreed with the actions of those cheating tax collectors and adulterous women he befriended. Yet, we have no record of him calling them names, swearing at them, or making degrading comments. Amazingly, we even have evidence that Jesus loved his enemies. Some think this is a Christian nation, others think it's a secular nation whose majority religion happens to be Christianity, and there is much to debate in terms of what exactly constitutes a Christian. And some believe that Christianity implies morality and ethical behavior, and that its absence is necessarily immoral and unethical .. and some believe otherwise. Some even believe the opposite. That being said, there's a lot to be said for cultivating civility, whether the motivation to be civil is religious or otherwise. And as someone who is as far from church going Christian as it's possible to be and still live on this planet, I have to say that Jesus set a good example, and there's solid reasoning behind his teachings that is far above the petty little sects fighting over miniscule differences in apocryphal doctrine. ;) Can't we all just get along? ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Wife's suggestion!
Chris Frandsen wrote: My wife suggested this. I always go along with her ideas:-) learner Begin forwarded message: Hey! Let’s circulate a request for common courtesy and civility between individuals and groups with opposing ideas. I don’t know about you, but I have become increasingly concerned about the verbiage and rage Americans are expressing to and about one another. Verbal abuse and physical attacks send a damaging message of hostility to our youth and demolish our image to the rest of the world. We can and will disagree, which makes us stronger if we remember that we are all Americans. It’s acceptable to disagree—to not even like one another (including our president). Let’s not confuse freedom of speech with human decency. Just because an action is legal does not make it ethical. Bottom line—We profess to be a Christian nation. It is appropriate to ask, “What would Jesus say and do?” I imagine he disagreed with the actions of those cheating tax collectors and adulterous women he befriended. Yet, we have no record of him calling them names, swearing at them, or making degrading comments. Amazingly, we even have evidence that Jesus loved his enemies. The challenge is to disagree with dignity, intelligence and respect. If you think this is a worthwhile message, please forward it to others. I respectfully disagree. Not in appealing to people to be respectful in disagreements, but in appealing to the religious What would Jesus do? to do so. Rationality promotes calm debate. Sadly, religion is not conducive to rationality. Rather religion and religious belief promotes the irrational and rejection of the rational (IE: Creationism/Intelligent Design vs Evolution). No, appealing to ones irrational beliefs doesn't promote rational debate. Oh, as for an example of Jesus not respectfully disagreeing, call to your recollection what Jesus did to the vendors in the temple. I believe it had something to do with shouting, throwing over tables, smashing merchandise and even wielding a whip. It's been a while though, so I may be a little cloudy on the details. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Wife's suggestion!
Amen. I second, third, or thousandth the motion. Pat http://idiotgrrl.livejournal.com/ From: lear...@mac.com Subject: Wife's suggestion! Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 14:09:36 -0500 To: brin-l@mccmedia.com My wife suggested this. I always go along with her ideas:-) learner Begin forwarded message:Hey! Let’s circulate a request for common courtesy and civility between individuals and groups with opposing ideas. I don’t know about you, but I have become increasingly concerned about the verbiage and rage Americans are expressing to and about one another. Verbal abuse and physical attacks send a damaging message of hostility to our youth and demolish our image to the rest of the world. We can and will disagree, which makes us stronger if we remember that we are all Americans. It’s acceptable to disagree—to not even like one another (including our president). Let’s not confuse freedom of speech with human decency. Just because an action is legal does not make it ethical. Bottom line—We profess to be a Christian nation. It is appropriate to ask, “What would Jesus say and do?” I imagine he disagreed with the actions of those cheating tax collectors and adulterous women he befriended. Yet, we have no record of him calling them names, swearing at them, or making degrading comments. Amazingly, we even have evidence that Jesus loved his enemies. The challenge is to disagree with dignity, intelligence and respect. If you think this is a worthwhile message, please forward it to others.Barbara Frandsen219 fleckba...@stedwards.edu Life is short, Break the rules, Forgive quickly, Kiss slowly, Love truly, Laugh uncontrollably, And never regret anything that made you smile. Life may not be the party we hoped for, but while we're here we should dance. unknown author ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Wife's suggestion!
On Sep 21, 2009, at 3:20 PM, Michael Harney wrote: I respectfully disagree. Not in appealing to people to be respectful in disagreements, but in appealing to the religious What would Jesus do? to do so. Rationality promotes calm debate. Sadly, religion is not conducive to rationality. Rather religion and religious belief promotes the irrational and rejection of the rational (IE: Creationism/Intelligent Design vs Evolution). No, appealing to ones irrational beliefs doesn't promote rational debate. Oh, as for an example of Jesus not respectfully disagreeing, call to your recollection what Jesus did to the vendors in the temple. I believe it had something to do with shouting, throwing over tables, smashing merchandise and even wielding a whip. It's been a while though, so I may be a little cloudy on the details. On Sep 21, 2009, at 2:40 PM, Bruce Bostwick wrote: Some think this is a Christian nation, others think it's a secular nation whose majority religion happens to be Christianity, and there is much to debate in terms of what exactly constitutes a Christian. And some believe that Christianity implies morality and ethical behavior, and that its absence is necessarily immoral and unethical .. and some believe otherwise. Some even believe the opposite. That being said, there's a lot to be said for cultivating civility, whether the motivation to be civil is religious or otherwise. And as someone who is as far from church going Christian as it's possible to be and still live on this planet, I have to say that Jesus set a good example, and there's solid reasoning behind his teachings that is far above the petty little sects fighting over miniscule differences in apocryphal doctrine. ;) Can't we all just get along? A referral to Religion without being specific often sparks a response on this list. My wife is not a follower so she did not write this with this illustrious group in mind. Guys, I suggest taking her to task on this is part of the problem. There are many out there with religious beliefs be they Christian or otherwise. Being civil means respecting their beliefs though not necessarily accepting them. I agree with Bruce that in general lessons ascribed to Jesus are about love and acceptance of the other. I ascribe to them. As for the temple I believe that was more about the failings of organized religion but of course that is my interpretation I also am a bit cloudy. learner ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Wife's suggestion!
On Sep 21, 2009, at 2:57 PM, Chris Frandsen wrote: A referral to Religion without being specific often sparks a response on this list. My wife is not a follower so she did not write this with this illustrious group in mind. Guys, I suggest taking her to task on this is part of the problem. There are many out there with religious beliefs be they Christian or otherwise. Being civil means respecting their beliefs though not necessarily accepting them. Amen, brother! I think that the harsh immune response from some quarters to the merest mention of religion is a symptom of our general inability to be generous, kind, civil, open and _listening_. Most of us who hold that some religious practices and ideas have a valuable place in our society don't even find it necessary to go into an allergic reaction when our very beliefs -- which we introduce to the conversation in good faith (the secular meaning of that phrase) -- are attacked. It is not necessary to compare George Bush or Barack Obama to Hitler in order to say that we disagree with their policies. It is not necessary to call people with religious beliefs addled or deluded in order to say that we choose not to believe as they do. I agree with Bruce that in general lessons ascribed to Jesus are about love and acceptance of the other. I ascribe to them. As for the temple I believe that was more about the failings of organized religion but of course that is my interpretation I also am a bit cloudy. You seem to remember and understand the teachings and stories of Jesus better than you think. Jesus' main complaint was about the hypocrisy of the Jewish leadership: making a big show of their faithfulness while ignoring their own God's commands to be generous to the poor, to take care of the strangers in their midst, etc. Thank you for introducing this thread, and please tell your wife (for me, anyway) that she's welcome to couch her hopes for a gentler dialog in religious or rational terms as she feels fit. Blessings, Dave ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
