Respect and religion

[Guest guest]

I want to apologize to anyone who was hurt by what I said about

religion. I'm sorry that I can't give religious beliefs serious

credence, and I'm sorry that they annoy me. But when someone says that

belief and knowing are the same thing, I can't stay quiet, because

that's just not true.

Also, I did not enter the discussion on intelligent design and evolution

so that I could be preached at. I still think this is what happened. As

nobody appears to agree with me, and since certain people have decided

to restrict what I say without applying the same standards to all

parties, I'm leaving. If you want to contact me, I'm available by email.

Griff

--

Don't believe everything you think.

[Guest guest]

Adam ( " Griff " ) Sanford wrote:

> I want to apologize to anyone who was hurt by what I said about

> religion. I'm sorry that I can't give religious beliefs serious

> credence, and I'm sorry that they annoy me. But when someone says

> that belief and knowing are the same thing, I can't stay quiet,

> because that's just not true.

No one asked you to.

> Also, I did not enter the discussion on intelligent design and

> evolution so that I could be preached at. I still think this is what

> happened.

Perhaps it was. That's beside the point. Proselytizing is not

attacking anyone. As one of the few people on the list who is right of

center (although I am quite liberal on some things), I get disagreed

with a lot. It goes with the territory of being on a " discussion " list.

> As nobody appears to agree with me, and since certain

> people have decided to restrict what I say without applying the same

> standards to all parties, I'm leaving.

The same standards are in force for everyone. The only written rule

this list has is that attacks on others are off-limits. Disagreeing

with your beliefs is not off-limits. Trying to convince you of

different things is not off-limits. Those things are part of any

discussion of value.

What you did was a personal attack, and I asked you politely twice to

stop this. You stated obliquely that you refused to stop attacking

PEOPLE who attack your BELIEFS, stating that the two are one and the same.

People are not beliefs. If you can't handle people disagreeing with

your beliefs... well, you are in for a hard road, because I doubt you

are going to find many places where people are going to stop stating

their opinion when they find out that you don't agree.

If you get so offended when people bring up religious issues, why would

you even take place in a discussion about religion (and ID is simply

creationism without saying " God " )? You had to realize you were getting

into a religious discussion, and you are certainly free to do that, as

long as you can do so without calling people stupid or what have you.

But if one of them said you were stupid for not believing in God, I

would have asked them to stop it as well.

[Guest guest]

> Proselytizing is not attacking anyone.

I respectfully disagree, at least in the classic sense of

preselytizion. (I don't think I've seen outright

proselytization here, however.)

Proselytization involves someone approaching another person and

telling xem that only one religion, that of the proselyter, is

correct. That is in effect telling the target that xyrs beliefs

are wrong -- immorally wrong.

There are a number of variations on this, ranging from lies

(lying about particular aspects of a religion) to explaining

that the One True Religion is the only way to heaven, nirvana,

or tire screeching performance. An essential part of this is

that the target's belief system is wrong. It is done without

regard to whether it is offensive to those targeted.

I don't classify, " I believe in a supreme being " or " I have

faith " to be in this category of proselytization, even if it's

followed by, " Please consider this. " So long as the people

approached are adults, I wouldn't consider this to be overly

coercive.

- s

[Guest guest]

Stan's Computer wrote:

>

>

> > Proselytizing is not attacking anyone.

>

> I respectfully disagree, at least in the classic sense of

> preselytizion. (I don't think I've seen outright proselytization

> here, however.)

>

> Proselytization involves someone approaching another person and

> telling xem that only one religion, that of the proselyter, is

> correct. That is in effect telling the target that xyrs beliefs are

> wrong -- immorally wrong.

Saying someone's beliefs are immoral and wrong is not attacking the

person. For example, I am pro-choice... many people say that I am wrong

to assert that a fetus does not count as a person (under English common

law, from which our legal system is derived, it is not a person until it

has drawn its first breath, and I agree with that), and that upholding

the right of a woman to terminate her pregnancy is immoral. That is

fine... I would not have a problem with that. To them, it is immoral.

To me, it is immoral to tell a woman she may not control what grows

within her own body, living parasitically from her own lifeblood.

> There are a number of variations on this, ranging from lies (lying

> about particular aspects of a religion) to explaining that the One

> True Religion is the only way to heaven, nirvana, or tire screeching

> performance. An essential part of this is that the target's belief

> system is wrong. It is done without regard to whether it is

> offensive to those targeted.

Offense is not the same as attack. I expect people to be offended

sometimes. Perhaps you would place the line between personal attack and

not-personal attack closer to 's post than I do. But when he

says that he thinks someone is stupid and ignorant-- that's what I call

a clear personal attack. There are ways to say that is offensive (such

as " that's offensive " ) without calling people stupid.

This is not about Griff's beliefs, as I happen to agree with him

regarding the illogic of religion. This is about his self-stated view

that attacking his beliefs is the same as attacking him. And people are

not going to stop attacking the views of others simply because that

person thinks its a personal attack.

[Guest guest]

Hmm.. I don't think the proselytization issue really describes

what was happening on the list; just my response to

proselytization in general...

> Saying someone's beliefs are immoral and wrong is not attacking the

> person. For example, I am pro-choice...

Two different issues. The type of proselytization in the form

of promoting a specific religion as superior as compared to the

individual's religion posited as inferior. This is different

from an attack (in the sense of a flame) because it is still an

attack on ideas. This is different from expousing particular

beliefs (e.g., pro-choice) or even what Adam was talking about.

> Offense is not the same as attack. I expect people to be offended

> sometimes.

Yes.

> Perhaps you would place the line between personal attack and

> not-personal attack closer to 's post than I do.

I'd look at it with a question as to whether it was

proselytizing (which didn't seem to be the case). Without

looking at the original post, my guess is I'd personally

conclude that a discussion of faith, while it could be a part of

proselytizing, is not part of prselytizing. This is just my

opinion, however, and others would perhaps have different views

on this.

- s

[Guest guest]

That was the way I read ya!

jo

Re: Respect and religion

Hmm.. I don't think the proselytization issue really describes

what was happening on the list; just my response to

proselytization in general...

> Saying someone's beliefs are immoral and wrong is not attacking the

> person. For example, I am pro-choice.. .

Two different issues. The type of proselytization in the form

of promoting a specific religion as superior as compared to the

individual's religion posited as inferior. This is different

from an attack (in the sense of a flame) because it is still an

attack on ideas. This is different from expousing particular

beliefs (e.g., pro-choice) or even what Adam was talking about.

> Offense is not the same as attack. I expect people to be offended

> sometimes.

Yes.

> Perhaps you would place the line between personal attack and

> not-personal attack closer to 's post than I do.

I'd look at it with a question as to whether it was

proselytizing (which didn't seem to be the case). Without

looking at the original post, my guess is I'd personally

conclude that a discussion of faith, while it could be a part of

proselytizing, is not part of prselytizing. This is just my

opinion, however, and others would perhaps have different views

on this.

- s

[Guest guest]

It is interesting to see when our " social miscuing " carries into

print... normally that isn't the case so much from what I've seen.

One of the biggest problems I think we have in these cases is that we

DO frequently use the pronoun " you " when making general statements,

which some people can feel is a direct statement to them

individually, rather than general sharing.

It is also difficult to openly discuss a topic like faith, although

it has a great bearing on our lives, whether we have faith in a

Higher Power or are focused more on Direct, Observable Phenomenon on

the 5-senses plane, to guide our ethics and self-actualization.

I am a Jew living in a Christian community. There is my family, a

single gentleman living in a small village just south of us, and we

now have a commuter from out of town who works at the high school.

Otherwise, we are " surrounded " ... lol! The nearest synagogue is 50

miles away.

December (and April/May) can be especially hard; as a family, we had

to make some intense decisions, especially whether to " hide "

or " participate. " Well, duh... we're teachers, and here's the chance

for some " teachable moments... " considering that a major cultural

goal in the United States, officially, is to use schools as a vehicle

for building multi-cultural tolerance (not that it feels that way for

AS students...sigh).

My husband and I make Hannukah presentations in our schools and in

our own children's classes... focusing on history, culture, and

geography rather than faith issues (Hannukah can easily be adapted as

a mostly-secular presentation). When students ask the more difficult

questions, we make a general statement (e.g. " No, we don't believe

Jesus is the Messiah. " ), and encourage the kids to look into deeper

explanations for such questions, if they are still interested, when

they've grown up. When my principal, not realizing what she was

doing, scheduled our school's Open House this Wednesday, which is

Rosh HaShannah (the Jewish New Year), instead of getting upset, I

approached her with the idea that maybe I could provide her with a

list of dates for Jewish major holidays, so that a scheduling overlap

could be avoided in the future. She was mortified, offered to let me

leave early, and promised to never do that again. If I'd acted hurt,

angry, or defensive, she would have MIRRORED me, and it would have

gotten ugly.

Just as our family shares our culture in our town, while avoiding, as

much as possible, specific issues of faith, we also encourage our

children to learn about the majority culture while also educating

them well in Jewish philosophy and scripture... such that they have

no problem singing Christmas songs in music class or creating

ornaments in art... or sharing their own songs and symbols in those

classes. The idea we use to help them understand how participation

and belief can be separate, is based on how many Jewish actors we see

in Christmas movies; one can entertain another culture without being

a part of it yourself. Understanding those around you means you can

get along with them easier. Being the minority means adapting a bit

to the needs of the majority, while still seeking to maintain one's

own identity, culture, etc. I was raised with open contact with

Christian culture, including being in the " Christmas pageant " at

school every year, and spending one year at a private Christian

school because the public schools had some discipline problems and

the torment from the bullying outweighed any torment a group of

prostyletizing Christians could possibly create; it did not shake my

Jewish faith. I was educated well as a child by my local Jewish

community ... ritual was never " empty " observance without meaning. It

also meant that I saw a lot of what just happened in this forum with

Griff... people who cannot allow others to express their beliefs and

ideas because they feel threatened.

The point of all this is that, when someone like Griff feels " picked

on " personally by statements of others' ideas and beliefs to the

point of telling everyone to quit talking about it, we, in return,

feel like that person is trying to impose his or her own beliefs and

ideas on us, and a spiral of irritation begins.

I think it is wonderful that we can have open discussion of faith

issues in the context of living with AS, and most people posting have

done so with tact, not seeking to impose their beliefs on others but

rather merely stating their own perceptions and beliefs as

informational sharing.

I am hoping this thread does contiue. It is a fascinating read, and I

enjoy putting " my two cents " in on this issue from time to time.

>

> I want to apologize to anyone who was hurt by what I said about

> religion. I'm sorry that I can't give religious beliefs serious

> credence, and I'm sorry that they annoy me. But when someone says

that

> belief and knowing are the same thing, I can't stay quiet, because

> that's just not true.

>

> Also, I did not enter the discussion on intelligent design and

evolution

> so that I could be preached at. I still think this is what

happened. As

> nobody appears to agree with me, and since certain people have

decided

> to restrict what I say without applying the same standards to all

> parties, I'm leaving. If you want to contact me, I'm available by

email.

>

> Griff

> --

> Don't believe everything you think.

>

[Guest guest]

wrote:

>The point of all this is that, when someone like Griff feels " picked

>on " personally by statements of others' ideas and beliefs to the

>point of telling everyone to quit talking about it, we, in return,

>feel like that person is trying to impose his or her own beliefs and

>ideas on us, and a spiral of irritation begins.

Well, to be fair to Griff, there was also the " limited ability to

tolerate non-reality " aspect. I mean, I feel slightly nauseated (like

motion sickness) if I find myself immersed in a site where

(apparently) everyone believes in a literal way that " aspies " are the

" next stage " of evolution, inherently " better " than non-aspies, and

destined to take over the world (through natural attrition of the

inherently less fit non-aspies). I don't believe that. I believe it's

a dangerous belief, for various reasons, and if such a belief became

accepted as matter-of-fact by a majority here and thus a major theme

in conversations here, I'd probably leave -- after doing my best to

argue against it.

Different people have different tolerances for what they perceive as

dangerous irrationality. When one is battling one's own outrage

(caused by passing that internal limit of tolerance), it can be hard

to maintain the desirable civil tone in discussions. Sad but all too

often true.

Jane