A Commonsense "Mission Statement"
Hello there! Today, Zan made an interesting observation.
She wrote,
Reply to CJ: I thought it would be OK to just come out and ask you. There seems to be a lot of whispering around the internet. I think it is just logical to come out and ask people instead of assuming the worst. The worst you were going to say is that you DID hold to that T2A statement and then I would reconsider my opinion of you. If you have questions: ASK THEM. What were you going to do to me? Come through the internet wires and get me because I asked you a question? :-) Yesterday, I read this article on some blog by someone who took another blog article and disected it and came up with the idea that this guy did not believe the Bible was inspired. *sigh* Before the critical blogger did this, he should've asked the guy what he believed concerning the origin of scriptures. If the guy pussyfooted around and wouldn't give him a straight answer, like a politician, then I could justify the blog article. Make sense?
Can't their be civilized honest debate?
(Note... a couple of days ago, I posted an article to the liberal website, Talk2Action, which has led many around the blog-o-sphere to wonder, without asking me, if I share Talk2Action's stance on abortion, same-sex marriage, etc. I DON'T. I am pro-life, period. I believe that homosexual activity, as distinguished from homosexual orientation, is a sin; I also believe that persecuting anyone on the basis of race, gender or sexual orientation is likewise a sin.
I believe in racial equality; I believe in separation of church and state; I am unopposed to homeschooling, provided the homeschooling parent is literate him or herself and uses honest, fact-based curriculum; I am adamantly opposed to capital punishment; and I am in favor of universal healthcare.)
That being said...
Zan.... I like the way you think.
Please come right out and ask me anything, and please come right out and TELL me anything, including the fact that you think I am full of baloney, should that become the case. :)
And, that goes for everybody, not just Zan.
I may not agree with you, and you may not agree with each other, but discussion is a good thing, always. There's no topic so bad, that two Christians can't discuss it here in a civilized fashion. Debate is fine, and passionate, even heated debate is fine, as long as we respect one another's right to disagree.
The things that I don't like, and won't tolerate on my blog, are name calling and strike-and-run guerilla tactics, where someone throws out a bunch of accusations but will not back them up with dialogue, like this:
http://0rz.com/?gqg9N
That will never happen here. Period.
She wrote,
Reply to CJ: I thought it would be OK to just come out and ask you. There seems to be a lot of whispering around the internet. I think it is just logical to come out and ask people instead of assuming the worst. The worst you were going to say is that you DID hold to that T2A statement and then I would reconsider my opinion of you. If you have questions: ASK THEM. What were you going to do to me? Come through the internet wires and get me because I asked you a question? :-) Yesterday, I read this article on some blog by someone who took another blog article and disected it and came up with the idea that this guy did not believe the Bible was inspired. *sigh* Before the critical blogger did this, he should've asked the guy what he believed concerning the origin of scriptures. If the guy pussyfooted around and wouldn't give him a straight answer, like a politician, then I could justify the blog article. Make sense?
Can't their be civilized honest debate?
(Note... a couple of days ago, I posted an article to the liberal website, Talk2Action, which has led many around the blog-o-sphere to wonder, without asking me, if I share Talk2Action's stance on abortion, same-sex marriage, etc. I DON'T. I am pro-life, period. I believe that homosexual activity, as distinguished from homosexual orientation, is a sin; I also believe that persecuting anyone on the basis of race, gender or sexual orientation is likewise a sin.
I believe in racial equality; I believe in separation of church and state; I am unopposed to homeschooling, provided the homeschooling parent is literate him or herself and uses honest, fact-based curriculum; I am adamantly opposed to capital punishment; and I am in favor of universal healthcare.)
That being said...
Zan.... I like the way you think.
Please come right out and ask me anything, and please come right out and TELL me anything, including the fact that you think I am full of baloney, should that become the case. :)
And, that goes for everybody, not just Zan.
I may not agree with you, and you may not agree with each other, but discussion is a good thing, always. There's no topic so bad, that two Christians can't discuss it here in a civilized fashion. Debate is fine, and passionate, even heated debate is fine, as long as we respect one another's right to disagree.
The things that I don't like, and won't tolerate on my blog, are name calling and strike-and-run guerilla tactics, where someone throws out a bunch of accusations but will not back them up with dialogue, like this:
http://0rz.com/?gqg9N
That will never happen here. Period.
posted by CJ | 12:19 PM
5 Comments:
you know- i have come into contact with plenty of zealots on the internets. it is almost like a shock of cold water to the face to read your post and to actually see in print someone who has a common sense approach to their religion. thank you.
Hi,
Question, I was considering making an account on t2a ( I follow it pretty closely these days ), and their registration process says: ... and agree with the purpose of the site - perhaps I am misreading, but it seems that it might be reasonable to expect that one who has an account there does agree with their purpose and stand on these things, no? If it is true, then it seems that it would be a reasonable expectation that you did agree to the position of folks on that site. (I didn't create the account, I thought it might not be respectful that portion of the agreement.)
I applaud your commitment to common sense and plain speaking.
That being the case, I feel I must challenge your stance on both homosexuality and pro-life.
It's all very well to say that homosexual orientation is not a sin, but homosexual action is - but how are gay people supposed to have intimate relationships if they can't, erm, get it on?
I have a friend that I have known since he was 5, who has always been gay, and he is very altruistic, kind, caring, and so on. So (in the Christian worldview), God made him gay, and then denied him permission to ever have an intimate relationship. That makes no sense to me.
Regarding the pro-life stance, I think many of the posts on "Blog for Choice Day" make the argument for choice better than I can. It's sad that people sometimes have to choose abortion, but what about cases where women were raped, or are underage, unfit to have a child and so on? Having an abortion is not a choice that anyone makes lightly.
srl, I believe Carmon Freidrich voiced those same reservations, concerning MY account at Talk2Action.
The Talk2Action Statement of Purpose reads,
"Talk to Action is a platform for reporting on, learning about, and analyzing and discussing the religious right -- and what to do about it."
THAT is the PURPOSE and MISSION of the Talk2Action site: DISCUSSION.
The Statement goes on to point out:
"There is an editorial framework for this site than that is different than you will find on other major blog sites, so please read this carefully: We are pro-religious equality and pro-separation of church and state. We are prochoice, and we support gay and lesbian civil rights -- including marriage equality. Therefore, debates about the validity of abortion and gay rights are off topic."
THAT is the VIEWPOINT of the editorial staff of Talk2Action -- but not necessarily that of all of the bloggers and commentators there. Talk2Action is upfront about their liberal stance, however, they go on to say that they welcome persons with opposing viewpoints, and promise to treat them with courtesy (which is more than I can say for Carmon, who is supposedly a Christian -- it's a shame when Christian people are less charitable than are pagans), but T2A does restrict debate on abortion and gay rights(it's THEIR site, after all-- they can do that.) Their FAQ says:
"We understand that some people who share our general concern about the politics of the Christian Right may not agree on all of these matters. That's fine. Anyone who agrees with the general mission of this site is welcome to participate -- but bearing this in mind.
It is our intention to take the conversation forward, and not let it be held back by debating what, in our view are or should be, settled matters of human, civil and constitutional rights. Similarly, religious debates are off topic, especially debates between theism and atheism. Finally, we are nonpartisan. While political discussions are welcome, -- even central to the purpose of this site -- we do not wish the site itself to be a platform that is necessarily for or opposed to any particular party."
In short, the purpose of the site is discussion, and though the editorial stance is liberal, they make a point of welcoming people with opposing ideas. By signing the Statement of Purpose, you agree to avoid debate on abortion and gay rights, and to respect and behave courteously toward those who happen to disagree with your own views, WHATEVER your views may be. Thus, a liberal can't bash me just because I'm a conservative Christian.
I had no trouble understanding that (and frankly, I think that Carmon had no trouble understanding it either,
but admitting to that fact would have greatly interfered with the purpose of her posting)-- the stated purpose of the site is discussion.
In posting at Talk2Action, I wanted to alert people to the danger posed by Dominionism, and I also wanted to make it clear to those people who might not know better that Dominionism is not mainstream Christianity, but a dangerous heresy that is perverting the Gospel and driving people away from the body of Christ.
cj,
Thanks for your response. I had similar concerns when I saw you had joined t2a. One might ask, who is it that you want to alert - the pagans [your reference to t2a]? Christians who read t2a and are confused about these topics? Is it charitable to send misinformation about other Christians to pagans? Basically, if there is a dangerous heresy (which I don't see as well documented - did you listen to the podcasts I mentioned? ) would it not be the Christian brethren you go to rather than the pagans?
I see what you are saying about t2a being about discussion, but by 'moving the conversation forward', it seems that they take prochoice, pro gay marriage, etc as givens.
thanks, srl
Post a Comment
<< Home