Rick Adams wrote:
"Then if there really IS no feeling of superiority, justify the
existence of missionaries!
A person who sees him/her-self as not being superior to others
does NOT go into their communities and try to convert them to his/her
belief system in an attempt to "improve" their beliefs. That kind of
behavior is so offensive it justifies Michael Sylvester's tirades
against Eurocentricism--yet it is EXACTLY what both Christian and
Islamic sects have been doing for centuries (and are STILL doing in both
cases).
You can call it what you like--but to claim your beliefs are in
any way superior to those of anyone else makes it impossible to claim
that you don't feel a simultaneous sense of personal superiority (you DO
hold those "superior" beliefs personally, don't you?) since you are
placing your personal values at a higher level than those of others.
Sorry, Jim, but it's going to take a better argument than that
one to "demonstrate" that major religions don't encourage their members
to view themselves as superior. Any further doubts--think CALVINISM, the
religion that was responsible for many American values, including our
attitudes toward welfare and the American work ethic."
I can't tell if Rick is in favor of feeling superior to others or against
it. It seems that he is against it when he says that feeling your beliefs
are superior to others to the extent that you want to convince others of the
superiority of your beliefs is extremely offensive. On the other hand, he
seems to feel his ideas are superior to those of Jim's and he is engaging
Jim in this forum in the expectation (assuming he doesn't believe he is
going to change Jim's mind) of winning the battle for the hearts and minds
of other Tipsters. It seems that he feels his arguments are superior to
Jim's.
I am a little puzzled by how Calvinism, which contains the doctrine of the
total depravity of humanity (no one can do even the smallest good except God
directly enables him) and predestination by God of souls to salvation or
damnation, can explain both the American work ethic (which would seem to
rely on the Arminian idea of personal responsibility and free will) and our
attitude toward welfare. Without any further explanation of the welfare
comment, it seems that our predominant attitude toward welfare is one of
expecting people to take personal responsibility for their own lives and
pull themselves up by their bootstraps. I can see, in the case of welfare,
however, where a Calvinist approach to predetermination might suggest a
fatalism that would lead to a lack of concern for the poor. Maybe that is
what Rick was referring to. In any case, it is interesting that these two
doctrines, in total opposition to one another, could both be used to argue
against increasing welfare rolls.
Rick
Dr. Rick Froman
Associate Professor of Psychology
John Brown University
---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
