[Vision2020] Wilson is not a great mind, and neither am I

[Melynda Huskey]

Eric writes:

>And so, according to these folks, if DW tries to tell people what he thinks 
>is right and wrong, he is a religious freak supposedly trying to take over 
>the Palouse.  But if Nick or Joan tries to tell people what is right and 
>wrong they are simply normal, non-biased people trying to create a more 
>tolerant and benevolent society for us all.  Nick & Joan, et al, need to 
>realize that they are religious, and that they, too, are trying to make the 
>world see things the way they do.

I think we've got some semantic confusion here (deja vu!).  Everyone has a 
worldview.  Me, Eric, Joan, Ted, Nick, Debbie, Tami--you name her, she's got 
a world view. But not every world view is a religion.  So I can share a 
religion (Christianity) with Doug and Eric, although not a world view.  
Likewise Ted can reject religion, while holding passionately a non-religious 
value system which privileges care for one another.  It is possible to 
construct a civil society in which many religions and non-religious world 
views are valued and their expression protected.

>If we would all just realize that we are all religious beings who worship 
>our worldviews, then we could all sit around and peacefully debate and try 
>to decide whose religion is closest to the truth, without malice.

This model presupposes that there's one truest religion and that it's 
possible to determine which one that is through argument. (I"ll leave aside 
the question of worshipping a worldview). But even if that were true, what 
then to do with the case of you and me, Eric?  Two Christians, but with such 
widely diverging worldviews that we could scarcely agree on a single social 
expression of our Christianity.  Do we have different religions?  Different 
interpretations of the same religion?  Is one of us wrong?  Is debate 
required, and does one of us have to change his mind afterwards?  And if we 
aren't successful in changing anyone's mind, won't anger, if not malice, 
begin to seep into our relations?

Fears about domination or conquest in Moscow--of a particular person or 
denomination "taking over"--arise from a conviction that there's some desire 
to take over, and that such a conquest would harm our community and its 
members.  Debate doesn't change that perception:  you can't argue someone 
into feeling safe, or coerce her into trusting you.  This is one of the 
reasons religious conflict is so intransigent.

Melynda Huskey