Circumscribing My Passions
This evening I decided to delete all of the posts, and comments they have received, for the past week. Of course I can't really make the words I wrote go away. They still sit in newsreader feeds and those who were hurt by them are still impacted. However, by removing the posts I can stop things from getting any worse and I can remove them from future search results on the web.
Not a single opinion I hold or expressed in those posts has changed. I still feel strongly about all of the points I raised and stand by everything I said. However, it has been brought to my attention that my strong expression of disbelief in certain religious views can be hurtful to those who embrace them.
I did take an oath to be tolerant of the religious views of others and there was not a great deal of tolerance showing through in my recent posts and comments.
What gets me in trouble is a combination of things. First, writing a rant late at night after I have had a few beers tends to loosen my fingers and let me say what I'm really thinking on a topic. However, I now find that posting on a blog that has, strangely, become woven into the mix as some sort of semi-official Freemason forum has its ramifications.
I would be happy to continue any of my previously public debates in private but I now feel that the content I was posting was not harmonious and not in keeping with the oath I have taken.
My apologies to those who felt upset by the frank discussion of my own personal views. In the future, if I do broach the subject matter, I will try to use more cautious language.
Comments
I'll return a favor to you.. you encouraged me to read Robert Anton Wilson's "Quantum Psychology", and introduced the concept of using E-Prime. I've implied in other comments that this was a great and wonderful thing in terms of avoiding unresolvable conflict. So, I suggest you try using E-Prime as well when discussing topics that some may view as sensitive.
For example, instead of saying, "Joseph Smith was a lying cheat and pedophile. This is an irrefutable fact.", which is inflamatory, and choke full of implied disrespect and intolerance (I.E, reading between the lines and getting to the essense of what you are saying..... "you believe that crap Mormons preach? What are you, an idiot?"), reworked in an E-Prime context, (Doing the best I can here.. I'm still not really versed in using it well): "Some web sites and books I've read recently indicate that Joseph Smith practiced polygamy, and in one instance, married a 14 year old girl when he was 37 years old (Helen Mar Kimball, daughter of LDS apostle Heber C. Kimball, in 1843.) My opinion of him, based on this, and similarities to recent news on the Utah/Arizona border bring me to conclude that he used his religion and influence on his followers in an abusive manner." In doing this, you have left nothing to the 'spirits' .. saying "Joseph Smith was a Pedophile" is just making noises with no real meaning or truth -- it implies there is some quality, 'pedophile', an essense or 'spirit' that, while you can't measure it, hid within this person like some invisible twisted demon. On the other hand, giving the context of your statements and trying to stick to EPrime, others can come to their own conclusions, and disagree with your sentiment without being able to deny anything you said as false (Afterall, you read the books, and you do feel that way.) My own opinion on this particular example is that while I don't think he was a pedophile, I do think he knew what he was doing, probably did not think anything morally 'wrong' about it, and was nothing more than a historical Warren Jeffs; it does make me a bit sad that human nature as it is allows this kind of person to succeed and prosper for years, both then, and in the here and now. I'm not sure it will change.. given what I have read and studied of the 'Hawks and Doves' model of morality --- I view him as a hawk in a field of doves.
Of course, it may be that those that take offense won't be as kind as to use EPrime, but then, that's their problem. ;-)
http://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org
The question is still offensive if the person is looking to be offended. An extreme example:
"Even though I have TWO divinity degrees, I don't know much about the Mormon faith. I hear that they think Jesus and the Devil are brothers. Is that right"?
To which the correct response would have been:
"Your statement is rather unbelieveable given that you attended a Baptist seminary and this particular little distortion is a part of standard Baptist Apologetics as taught by the SBC. In fact, in 1998 at the SBC conference focused on ministering to Mormons, which was held in Salt Lake City (nice), and which you spoke at, a copy of your then new book was handed out to the press, along with a book entitled "Momonism UnMasked". Hmmmm."
Not that I'm a Mormon. I'm a Methodist. And we're not supposed to discuss politics and religion. Damn. Thats in Lodge though. But I digress. And certain politicians are making my blood pressure rise.
People are altogeather too sensative. So in the interests of catharsis I'll accept the role of Target. I'm a Mason and you are entitled to your beliefs about me (crazy as they may be). Fire away!
Ironically, this statement is not using E-Prime. You've ended up making a lot of noise. Let's state what I think you are trying to communicate:
A) one can categorically determine if a person 'is' a bigot.
- under E-Prime, language such as "Bob is a bigot" is not used. It presupposes some twisted invisible property called 'bigot' that somehow lives in bob, that can not be tested, verified, or even find agreement among all parties(Probably many of Bob's buddies, wife, kids, and Bob himself answers the question "Is Bob a bigot" with "no.")
B) that bigots are bad and a problem.
- Someone using absolutes and invisible spirits to categorize other people using hate, fear, and deception become a problem only when those concerned accept the invisible spirits brandied about, which E-Prime happens to be trying to banish. "Blacks *are* inferior", "Mormons *are* sinners", "Americans *are* idiots". If one understands that these statements are just a lot of meaningless noise, they lose their power (along with the "Whites *are* superior", "Evangelical Christions *are* saved", and "Japanese *are* smart.")
C) If bad people use a tool, the tool must therefore be bad.
- A common argument of 'guilty by association'. If you accept this, then religion, bibles, automobiles, babies, free speech, and brains may also need addressing as problems to solve.
I might also point out that your 'extreme' example really doesn't seem that extreme to me at all. Your proposed correct response seems a bit silly, when there are a few more simple or plain responses... if one happens to know a lot of mormons and have discussed what they believe, a reasonable response might be "many mormons believe Jesus and the Devil, as well as every person alive or every living on this earth are spirit children of God. Many if not most might therefore say, if pressed, that Jesus and Satan are spirit brothers. So what?"
Where you see no "spirits" they see a dark world raging with Satan's familiars. They have a response to "So what?" that involves Hell, damnation, Satan, and Lucifer. (The actual charge, by the way, and interestingly enough quoted by attendees at the "Value Voters Summit" is that Jesus and Lucifer are brothers)
As to the actual charge (perjorative I know)it is semantic gymnastics at best and the same logic can be used to tar any Judeo-Christian with horrific comparisons.
If you wish to "E-Prime" these people to the point of rhetorical exhaustion whereupon they give up the fight you are a better man than I.
As to the idea that perjorative language can loose its power, a case can certainly be made for this and my students who continually use the n-word would agree.
But what would you propose in the interim when such ideas, not "spirits", "demons", or even "wraiths", can be used to move people to hatred and violence?
Because just the question will prove to many people that the thing is unquestionably true.
I never said that E-Prime was bad because it could be misused. I said it is misused.
All rhetoric can be misused. All rhetoric is misused. And it can be misused in an attempt to disguise a person's motives.
I do know, by the way, that all of this does horrible violence to E-Prime. So what?
As far as I'm concerned, just ask the question.
(BTW - I do like RAW)
I'm starting to wonder if you need to put a rule in place that prevents activation of the keyboard whenever alcohol is present in your system. Or maybe just prevents you from posting on the blog. There have been a few times over the past few months I've seen you put up a post only to have it disappear a few hours later. I found it odd at the time. After hearing your confession of late night beers loosening up your fingers, I now understand why the posts vanished. Posts often look different under the light of day after the beer has worn off.
I haven't particularly taken down posts because I don't strongly support what I said; but rather I take them down because I decide they are becoming too unharmonious (a concern that I used to never worry about in the past.)
Brother John
Yeeeowch.