[Vision2020] Curiosity Question

[Joe Campbell]

Sorry about the incomplete sentences but i'm sending this from my iPhone.

Here's what I know: a local political/religious group made a public, threatening comment and a few of the folks who were offended by it reacted in predictable ways. You had an opportunity to condemn the former group for their insulting comments, which you must know are more likely to stir the tension between us than heal them. Instead you chose to condemn the folks who were offended in the first place. That strikes me a little like blaming the victim. Not that I feel like a victim. I'm just making an analogy. 

Sorry but I just get a little upset when I see sensible moderates kissing the asses of the radical fringe but not having the decency to keep quiet when the left sound off about the offense. And say what you want but if it were a Muslim college making a similar threatening comment about a Christian church, you'd be on our side. And they would have been burned to the ground.

Does this make sense?


On Nov 28, 2010, at 4:42 PM, Darrell Keim <keim153 at gmail.com> wrote:

> 
> 
> On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 4:06 PM, Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm happy for you that the fact that at least two radical rightwing
> churches, ones who continually disrespect and even threaten people who
> have alternative world views, exist in Moscow; that one of them ran a
> candidate for political office, hoping to extend their narrow, bigoted
> views. 
> 
> I'm going to assume that the above incomplete sentence was intended to say something along the lines that the radical rightwing churches don't bother me.  Again, you are reading more into my note than I actually said.  You have no idea what I think of them.  All you know is that I didn't think we needed to bring Christ Church into Tom's church list question.  That comment was followed by Tom himself saying something very similar in a follow-up note.  I am perfectly happy that you are interested in these two churches.  Just because something is not a topic I pursue vociferously does not mean others shouldn't.  Unfortunately, this listserv seems like a one note instrument when almost everything is linked to that same topic.
> 
> As to any new remarks made by NSA-how are they breaking news?  Are they breaking with previous pronouncements?  You (and others) find their beliefs and stances repugnant.  Nothing new there.  If the dog has always smelled, why keep talking about it if that is all the action you plan to take?
> 
> I do find it interesting how you feel free to make accusations about me but are unwilling/able to back them up when pressed (Too summarize for our viewership you have made four unproven/untrue accusations about me:  1.  I am unconcerned about these local churches.  2. I have criticized people that are.  3.  I am only concerned about threatening remarks made about Christians.  4.  I am a Christian-I'll concede this point, I'm a Protestant.).  That's a lot of unwarranted assumptions you make about me.  We all know what happens when you ass-u-me.  Doesn't lead credence to your other discussion points.  I hope for better use of argumentation and logic from a philosopher with such an awesome name.
> 
> I've told you how I stand up for what I'm concerned about.  I volunteer and/or work for agencies that make a difference.  Do you do anything other than write and talk?  Nott meant as a jab.  I really am curious, and suspect others on v2020 are too.  I know it means more to me when someone combines their talk with action.  As an aside, I am currently reading a bio of Irish hunger striker Bobby Sands.  What a guy!  He REALLY walked the talk.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20101128/2ddfb060/attachment-0001.html