[Vision2020] Papal Forgiveness

[Chasuk]

On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 15:38, Campbell, Joseph <josephc at wsu.edu> wrote:

> I don't think that you should do things on the basis of whether or not
> it would bother you were someone to do it to you . . . I think you should do
> things on the basis of whether or not it would bother other people in a
> way that you wouldn't wish to be bothered.

I agree with you, up to a point.  If I limited all of my behaviors to
those which would not bother others, my list of possible behaviors
would be dismayingly short.  I am not willing to proscribe myself to
that extent.

Their discomfort has to seem to me reasonable.  I'm not going to shave
my mustache because some random person at WinCo might be offended by
facial hair.  I'm not going to censor my subject of discourse on the
Viz because it makes someone unhappy, when it is simple enough to
avoid reading messages by Chas.  It's like changing the channel, only
easier.

> This is my interpretation of the Golden Rule.

Your interpretation does not vary much from mine, except for the
aforementioned caveat.

> You suggest that you are making general points of criticism, not
> insulting or ridiculing any one group in particular, but it doesn't come
> off that way to me at all. First, all of your recent posts along these
> lines are directed toward one group only: Catholics. Second, they
> concern one issue only: Communion.

When I sit down to respond to email, I don't marshal my thoughts
beforehand.  Every word of every sentence is extemporaneous.  If I
have emphasized Catholics and Communion recently, it isn't due to any
grand plan.  I saw the article that inspired this thread and thought
that it might be of interest to some of those on the Viz, so I
referenced it (with brief commentary).  I do try to avoid critiquing
the Kirkers, as they have been mauled ad nauseum.

> Third, you don't seem to want to engage in a thoughtful discussion about this issue. For instance, you made some claims previously which I rebutted in an exchange with Wayne and you seem to have ignored my comments completely.

The only reason that I frequent the Viz is to engage in thoughtful
discussion, though I regrettably get sidetracked.  If I failed to
respond to your comments, my apologies.

I do prefer that we stick to only a few points per message.  First,
due to constraints on my time.  Second, every point beyond a few seems
to increase the likelihood of disagreeable tangents.

> In your last post you fail to make the connection between Communion and God and the belief that desecration of the one is desecration of the other, given the view under consideration . . . Again, I'm not saying that I share that view but I don't think it is absurd, as you suggest it is, and I certainly wouldn't subject it to ridicule in an open forum.

I respectfully disagree.  I think that the ostensible Catholic view is
patently absurd.  Let's suppose that I had the choice to prevent
genocide or to prevent someone from failing to digest a cracker.
Apparently, according to Catholic dogma, I should choose the latter.
I can't parse the absurdity of out that view; it won't go away even
when I squint.

> If there is some general point that you're trying to get at -- other than your hatred of Catholicism -- then just get to it.

I promise that I have no hatred of Catholicism.  Of all of the
Christian denominations, I hold it in highest regard.  I hold
Catholicism in such high regard that I hope my comments will segue
into fruitful dialogue, starting with the arcane details of
Catholicism and branching into Hinduism, Sufism, and every other faith
on this planet.

Religion is interesting to me, period.

Which comments of yours did I ignore?

Chas