[Vision2020] Finger Pointing and Labeling?

[Ted Moffett]

Mike et. al.

You posted a critique containing some rather serious slams against my 
writing.  Show the courtesy of reading the following and offering a reasoned 
explanation to justify your claims.

Below is your vision2020 post regarding my "original attack of a religious 
group," as you phrased it, and my post in question is below that.  I assume 
this vision2020 post is the one you are referring to because you mention the 
subject heading involved.

I will try to make sense of your post with specific references to my text.

You state that you were offended by "characterizations, finger-pointing, and 
labeling" which I assume you thought was directed against "the religious 
group."

In my first paragraph I give a short explanation of why a Christian school 
might not push the liberal enlightenment agenda of treating the sexes 
equally in sports.  I quote a local Christian writer, Doug Jones, who has 
explained what he sees as the error in liberal thinking which attempts to 
"deny differences" and the resultant reasonable divergence in the way the 
sexes may be treated.  I do not see the content in this paragraph that is so 
offensive.  In fact, I demonstrate the results of an honest attempt to 
understand a Christian point of view, and I have defended the thinking of 
local Christian thinkers on vision2020 when I thought they were correct.

My second paragraph is meant to be funny and absurd but with a point: the 
link between the violent sports of youth, warfare, and how ideologies are 
spread throughout history by the use of force.  The image of an all female 
Goddess worshiping warrior society suggested by the use of the word 
"amazonian" is meant to humorously contrast with the patriarchal male 
centered warrior societies of Christianity.  Perhaps you think the very 
suggestion that Christianity has any historical links to warfare to be an 
unfair or malicious characterization, but to ignore this historical fact and 
call such a reference "finger-pointing and labeling" suggests you advocate 
censorship of facts.

My next sentence only states in general that there is a connection between 
violent sports for male youth and their preparation for war.  It was not an 
oversight that I mentioned this connection with absolutely no mention of 
what religions or nations or ideologies are involved in training male youth 
for war.  No finger pointing or labeling here.

In the next paragraph I make the explicit connection between Christianity 
and warfare, mentioning Christianity's use of force to spread the word.  Do 
you think this fact of history should not be mentioned?

I don't see this as "finger-pointing and labeling" when in the next 
paragraph I explicitly state that I do not mean to pick on Christianity.

I assert that all major ideologies have used force to spread their beliefs.  
I ask for counter examples to my assertion!  A counter example to my 
proposition would have been useful, Mike!

I wonder if you really read what I wrote.  How can I be "finger-pointing and 
labeling" about a religious group when the critique I made of youth being 
prepared for warfare via violent sports is something I imply every society 
pushing every major ideology is implicated in throughout history.

My final paragraph is meant to be a sobering reminder that as a species we 
must adopt a more pacifistic mentality or the power of scientific warfare 
could lead to our extinction.  No blame for this is placed on any group 
whatsoever.

I conclude from my analysis of your comments regarding my vision2020 post in 
question that you demonstrated a lack of careful reading of my meaning, at 
best, or at worst you engaged in an attempt to discredit the legitimacy of 
my suggestions regarding violent sports, religion, ideology, warfare and the 
importance of lessening the war-like tendencies of humanity, without 
offering any specifics.

I suggest that if you are going to post a negative reply to a post you at 
least mention the specific statement or statements that you find offensive.

Ted

Mike Curley's vision2020 post dated 3-13-2003:

Ted:
I thought your original attack of a religious group was inappropriate on 
this list regardless of how much I might disagree with the philosophy or 
practices of the religious group. I was offended by your characterizations, 
finger- pointing, and labeling as I would have been had you attacked my 
Jewish, atheist, Muslim, agnostic, Buddhist, or other (non-"fundamentalist") 
Christian friends. This is indeed a public list, but I don't think that 
means that anyone you want to criticize, and any way you want to criticize 
them, is fair game. However, since no one ever seems to want to take the 
continuing religious philosophy discussions off list, I would just ask one 
thing. Please retain the "subject" thread in continuing posts (amazonian 
goddesses) so that the multitude of us who want can readily identify and 
delete the messages. Thank you.



Ted Moffett's post referred to by Mike Curley:

All:

The very suggestion that Trinitarians' would model their sports programs on 
the government school regulations mandating women's sports is unthinkable.  
After all, "equality denies difference," to quote Doug Jones, and 
Trinitarians' clearly think men and women are different in ways that mandate 
they not be given equal treatment, both in chest exposure and exposure to 
the rigors of sports.

I would love to match the buffed and trained female "amazonian" children of 
gay Goddess worshiping feminist female parents (Don Kaag take note) in 
battle against the Trinitarian boys.  Who cares about facts and reason, 
let's settle this in battle, and let children and youth fight to promote our 
cause!  Surely I jest, but after all, is this not how the dominant 
ideologies of the world have spread their beliefs throughout history?

Let's not be so naive as to think that the violence of sports for male youth 
has no connection to preparation for warfare.

No one should blink an eye at the endorsement of warrior sports for the 
males being raised in a fundamentalist Christian tradition.  Christianity 
has been spread by the sword when it could not succeed by "peaceful" means 
to convert the natives.  This is a fact of history that of course will be 
denied and put through the spin filters of those wishing to place 
Christianity in a more favorable light.

But I don't mean to pick on Christianity here, though it is the dominant 
religion of our country.  All MAJOR ideologies use violence to promote their 
beliefs.  If someone can provide an counter example, I would be grateful.  
In anticipation of exceptions I will comment that sadly the ideology of 
pacifism is a NOT a major ideology in our world, nor has it ever been.

There is still time for pacifism to become a dominant ideology before the 
prevalent attitude of the use of violence to settle conflict leads to 
technological and scientific based warfare that could lead to the extinction 
of the human race or to a result that will leave the survivors wishing they 
were extinct.

Ted



_________________________________________________________________
Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. 
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail