[Vision2020] Interfaith Panel Thurs. May 15

[Ted Moffett]

Joe et. al.

Your comment reminds me of US General William Boykin's disturbing statements
regarding God:

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1016-01.htm

Discussing the battle against a Muslim warlord in Somalia, Boykin told
another audience, "I knew my God was bigger than his. I knew that my God was
a real God and his was an idol."

"We in the army of God, in the house of God, kingdom of God have been raised
for such a time as this," Boykin said last year. On at least one occasion,
in Sandy, Ore., in June, Boykin said of President Bush: "He's in the White
House because God put him there."
------------------------------------------
Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett

On 5/18/08, Joe Campbell <joekc at adelphia.net> wrote:
>
>
> There is something about the use of religion for political purpose -- in
> your
> case, polluting conversations on Vision 2020 and peppering your rude,
> insulting remarks with the word "Christian" -- that makes me sick.
>
> --
> Joe Campbell
>
> ---- Donovan Arnold <donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> =============
> Joe,
>
> My Joedus remark was made because you were supporting an argument made to
> denounce the existence of God. That to me is unchristian.
>
> I think everyone deserves death Joe. As everyone is a sinner. But only
> through the grace of God and the sacrifice of Jesus do we live.
>
> If that is a radical view, then Christians are radical.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Donovan
>
> Joe Campbell <joekc at adelphia.net> wrote:
> I guess I don't understand why you wrote this then: "I chose Joedus because
> it was fitting for the role he takes on making traitorous statements and
> misleading others about Christ while pretending to be a Christian."
>
> I assumed that, according to you, I was not a Christian because I was pro-
> choice. But, according to what you say below, this could not have been what
> you meant. Could you please explain what you meant by this offensive
> comment? In what sense am I "pretending to be a Christian"?
>
> Also, your new stance sounds very different from the initial response to
> this
> set of questions, when you wrote:
>
> "It depends on if they are speaking in religious figurative terms; For
> example,
> all sinners deserve death, or if they really are advocating the murder of
> self
> professed homosexuals. Obviously, anyone that is advocating the actual
> murder of someone is not mentally balanced. Someone that says, 'Sinners
> deserve death' to illustrate none of us that offend God deserve life, I
> think is
> just illustrating a religious/spiritual viewpoint."
>
> Again, this was in response to my question "Don't you think that someone
> who believes [that gays deserve the death penalty] is a sick individual?"
>
> Actually, I don't exactly know what you mean above, especially given what
> you've said recently. It seems like you are saying that all gays are
> sinners
> and deserve death because they are sinners. This seems like a very radical
> view. Below, though, you take a much more liberal view of those who have
> abortions. In this case, it can't be a sin since there is no deliberate
> taking
> of a life. Is this really your view?
>
> And what do you mean by "religious figurative terms"?
>
> Your view that the death penalty is wrong seems new, too. I remember
> having a heated debate with you on this topic and you didn't mention it
> then.
>
> --
> Joe Campbell
>
> ---- Donovan Arnold wrote:
>
> =============
> Joe,
>
> I think the Death Penalty is wrong. But I understand it is still necessary
> in some instances. I think as a society we should work to eliminate it from
> being necessary. I don't think that people that support abortion are
> necessarily anti-Christian or murderers. I think to be a murderer you have
> to deliberately take an innocent human life with a soul. Since nobody can
> know with evidence that a fetus has a soul, it cannot be deliberate talking
> of a life. But it is still wrong. And we as a society should work to
> eliminate it by giving women real alternatives to abortion. Society allows
> women to fall easily into unwanted pregnancies, they only allows them three
> painful alternatives of adoption, abortion or poverty.
>
> I don't know what Gier is babbling about. I never do, he just jumps around
> from issue to issue demonstrating his lack of understanding and grip of what
> it is like to live in the real world outside a University. But just so your
> conspiracy theories don't expand any further, no, I don't support suicide
> either, even those of people I disagree with. :P
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Donovan
>
>
>
> Joe Campbell wrote:
> Dear Donovan,
>
> At first when I read this, I thought that you still failed to answer the
> question.
>
> But then I realized that you are Catholic, and here you are saying that any
> form of the death penalty is murder, right?
>
> So now I ask, Why not call out those in favor of the death penalty in the
> same
> way that you call out folks like me who are pro-choice (even though I am
> both against abortion and against the death-penalty, for reasons like you,
> I suppose)? Why not call them murderers, and anti-Christian?
>
> Well, I know the answer to that! Let's put it this way: I dare you to say
> that
> anyone who accepts the death-penalty is anti-Christian. You won't do it!
>
> There are complicated issues here and you oversimplify them to your
> political
> advantage. Shame on you!
>
> Best, Joe
>
> PS Did you really say that I was a coward because I won't kill myself, as
> Nick
> notes? If so, I missed it but, dear God, I hope you didn't say that!
>
> ---- Donovan Arnold wrote:
>
> =============
> Joe,
>
> Ok, I will entertain your conspiracy theory.
>
> I think anyone that attempts to kill, or tries to persuade someone to
> commit murder, for any reason, is mentally unstable, yes.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Donovan
>
> Joe Campbell wrote:
> I know that few people care about this -- to those please delete! -- but I
> want
> to come back to "Donovan's" intentional confusion here. The answer to the
> third question given below is not an answer to the question that I asked.
> It is
> an explanation of why someone who thinks that sinners deserve death is not
> a sick individual. But I didn't ask that. I might have but I didn't.
>
> What I asked Donovan to explain is whether or not someone who thinks that
> the specific sin of gay sex warrants the death penalty is a sick
> individual.
>
> Suppose someone -- call him "Chris" -- thinks that anyone who engages in
> gay sex deserves to be put to death as a form of punishment. Wouldn't
> Chris,
> in your opinion, Donovan, be a sick individual?
>
> --
> Joe Campbell
>
> ---- Donovan Arnold wrote:
>
> =============
> Do you think that gays deserve the death penalty?
>
> Don't you think that this is a sick and crazy view?
>
> Don't you think that someone who believes this is a sick individual?
>
>
> Nope, not anymore than anyone else.
>
> Nope, it isn't a crazy view, or should I say it is not a crazy view.
>
> It depends on if they are speaking in religious figurative terms; For
> example, all sinners deserve death, or if they really are advocating the
> murder of self professed homosexuals. Obviously, anyone that is advocating
> the actual murder of someone is not mentally balanced. Someone that says,
> "Sinners deserve death" to illustrate none of us that offend God deserve
> life, I think is just illustrating a religious/spiritual viewpoint.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Donovan
>
> Joe Campbell wrote:
> Do you think that gays deserve the death penalty?
>
> Don't you think that this is a sick and crazy view?
>
> Don't you think that someone who believes this is a sick individual?
>
> --
> Joe Campbell
>
> ---- Donovan Arnold wrote:
>
> =============
> Joe,
>
> Stay away from the Kool-Aid.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Donovan
>
> Joe Campbell wrote:
> Notice the lengthy pause after a day of rapid fire responses.
>
> They're trying to figure out what to say. Will it be:
>
> a. "Joe [the logician] is illogical."
>
> b. "Joe's been eating backed goods."
>
> c. "I suppose Joe wants to punch me in the nose now."
>
> d. "We don't have to believe you since you, Joe, are not a Christian.
> At least not in my [narrow] book"
>
> Or:
>
> e. "Look, I already told you that I sin every day!"
>
> Please cast your votes!
>
> --
> Joe Campbell
>
> ---- Tom Hansen wrote:
>
> =============
> No problem, Joe. As they say in New York . . . Fuhgeddaboutit. I have.
> Besides, you have very nicely "outed" the Arnold-wannabe. Still the question
> remains: Who is playing Arnold today? Tom
>
> > Date: Wed, 14 May 2008 18:36:51 -0700> From: joekc at adelphia.net> To:
> joekc at adelphia.net> CC: idahotom at hotmail.com; vision2020 at mail-gw.fsr.net;
> donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Interfaith Panel
> Thurs. May 15> > I hope it is clear that I intended this as a joke! This is
> Aristotle's > understanding of "syllogism" but most folks (outside of
> logicians) in the > modern world take "syllogism" to mean "argument." Given
> standard > contemporary usage, Tom was correct!> > --> Joe Campbell> > ----
> Joe Campbell wrote: > > =============> Sorry, Tom.> > A syllogism is a
> two-premise argument. The argument below has only one > premise, so it is
> not a syllogism.> > That concludes today's logic lesson!> > --> Joe
> Campbell> > ---- Tom Hansen wrote: > > =============> Exactly, Andreas.> >
> Analogous to Arnold's (aka Doudalchri Wilcourwit) logic is the following
> syllogism> > One guaranteed way to reduce the number of criminals to
> ABSOLUTE ZERO is to eliminate ALL laws.> >
> No laws. No crimes.> No crimes. No criminals.> > Result: A total crime-free
> society. Just don't go outside.> > Seeya round town, Moscow.> > Tom Hansen>
> Moscow, Idaho> > > > > Date: Wed, 14 May 2008 11:28:38 -0700> From:
> ophite at gmail.com> To: donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com> CC:
> vision2020 at mail-gw.fsr.net> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Interfaith Panel
> Thurs. May 15> > Donovan --> > Wait. You're saying that discrimination
> exists because we refuse to ignore it?> > Sure. Okay.> > -- ACS> > On Wed,
> May 14, 2008 at 12:19 AM, Donovan Arnold> wrote:> > Mo,> >> > I agree that
> discrimination still exists. But I think the reason why the US,> > unlike
> other western nations, has not moved past these hang ups is precisely> >
> because of the tactics used to try and end it.> >> > When we tell people
> they are wrong or should feel guilty because they are> > White,
> heterosexual, christian, non-disabled, male, etc, you quickly turn> > off
> the majority of people you are trying to convert.> >> > If we
> just hire, fire, include people based on merit, we would end> >
> discrimination quickly.> >> > Best Regards,> >> > Donovan> >> > Mo
> Hendrickson !> wrote:> >> > It shouldn't matter, but unfortunately in our
> society, racism, sexism,> > classism, religious choice, sexual orientation,
> gender preference,> > disability, on and on and on, are still factors in
> discrimination. We do> > not live in a color blind/gender blind etc society
> and until we do we need> > to make sure that people from under represented
> groups are at the table and> > part of the conversation, even if we may not
> agree with what they are> > saying. It is important that we realize the
> inherent worth in all people> > for what they have to contribute to the
> betterment of our nation and world.> >> > I believe that Sue's original
> point was that this is a community event and> > at her first glance she did
> not see a woman on the panel. An event that is> > trying to reach beyond
> faith lines should have a diverse panel.
> I am very> > glad to see that it does, and I would imagine that there is
> plenty of> > diversity on the panel beyond t!> he gender and race of those
> that are> > represented. We all should be > trying to make spaces for
> diversity to enter> > into the conversation so that one day we won't need to
> rely on those> > categories.> >> >> > -Mo> >> >
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20080520/4dba1493/attachment.html