quote:Figure it out, Dag, the world doesn't revolve around you. I'm entitled to put in my comment without reference to whatever is happening in your little world.
I don't even know what the hell this means in this context. You made explicit assumptions about my intent. They were wrong. I didn't imply, suggest, insinuate, or state that you were in favor of KoM's ongoing police state crap. Not only can I not figure out how you got that out of the quoted portion of my post, you now have no excuse whatsoever for not realizing that I wasn't referring to you.
quote:And yes, you asked for clarification, after your usual assumptions about my intent.
Except that what you quoted as being an assumption about your intent WASN'T ABOUT YOU. "The world doesn't revolve around you."
Also note that I stated from the very beginning that your meaning about proselytizing and strip clubs advertisements wasn't clear. Here it is again:
quote:It sounds like you want to be able to suppress religious speech based on its content here in America, if I'm interpreting this correctly:
quote:More to the point, was the parade for the purpose of allowing proselytizing? I have long felt that the American right to free speech does not mean that I have to listen to (or read) what people have to say.
I'm usually referring to billboards, bumper stickers, and anything else that might have something on it that I don't feel I should have to explain to my children if I'm driving in a car with them. There was a time when nobody would've considered putting billboards up on I-95 advertising strip clubs, because it would have violated some kind of decency law. Today it's covered by the 1st amendment. I don't believe the founders had anything like that in mind.
It's not entirely clear to me - and I welcome your clarification either way - but it seems as if you're saying that proselytizing is one of those things that you don't feel you should have to explain to my children if I you're driving in a car with them. If so, it further seems you are advocating removing proselytizing from the protection of the First Amendment.
Got that? There was NO assuming. I told you how it "seemed" and asked for clarification.
I spent considerable time researching an article for you, didn't say anything bad about you, and took great pains to underline that I wasn't sure about your meaning. And you still got pissed.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok, first. I apologise. You're right, you asked for clarification. Bear in mind that being an atheist within theist society gives me thin skin, and I overreacted. I guess you could compare that with black people that see racism everywhere, Jews that see antisemitism everywhere, and gays that see homophobia everywhere.
Please note that what follows is an explanation of an emotional response. You can't argue with it logically, so it's probably better not to try.
This is (part of) what I was reacting to:
quote:It sounds like you want to be able to suppress religious speech based on its content here in America
No, I wasn't, and I get tired of being accused of this. It's not just one event, it's the buildup, the overall experience of being accused time after time. And while, yes, you asked for clarification, it felt like when the press calls someone an "alleged murderer," when they've obviously already drawn their conclusions.
I've worked for many years to try to find common ground between atheists and theists. I started doing this on alt.atheism and got burned out trying to balance my arguments between the fundy nutcases and the other atheists like KoM (many of whom made his behavior seem pleasant by comparison). I'm not sure how I wound up here, but I'm drawn to it in large part by the fact that there are frequent exchanges between theists and atheists, and they seem much more productive than the flame wars on alt.atheism. But there still doesn't seem like much progress.
Years ago, Rivka made a post that said something like: "Wow that's the first thing Glenn Arnold has said that I actually agree with." Up to that point, I had seen her name, and probably had some back and forth conversation in the larger context of a variety of threads, but I'd never been conscious of specifically conversing with her. I was intrigued by her comment, and I asked her to explain what specifically she had disagreed with. You responded that she disagreed with everything I'd said about religion. She never responded at all.
Just as you feel you made a legitimate effort to include requests for clarification about my posts, I have gone to great lengths to always include point of view statements when I speak of religion. For example, instead of saying: "There is no God," I say, "From the atheistic perspective, there is no God." That doesn't seem to be enough, however. people still react as though I've attacked their viewpoint. Emotions are powerful things.
I'm jealous that there exist groups such as ecumenical councils, and interfaith organizations, where people from a variety of religious backgrounds agree to seek the commonalities of their religious philosophy, while seeking to minimize the differences that lead to sometimes violent conflict, but there exist no such organizations that welcome atheists to try to find the same commonalities.
After September 11, people needed healing. They were also trying hard to avoid showing prejudice against Muslims, so when they arranged vigils and community gatherings, they always included a statement like "members of all religions welcome." Atheists needed to heal too. But we weren't invited. But it never occurred to those people that they were discriminating against anybody, because atheists just don't count.
That's pretty subtle, and likewise when it "seems" to you that I'm saying something you find disturbing, well, it seems that way to you because of assumptions you've made, however subtle they may be, and I'm sensitive to that.
Years ago when I was first made aware of your SCOTUS case, I told you that I agreed with the merit of the case, from your perspective. Yet your response to my comment forced me to defend my statement, which made no sense to me at all. Again, there were assumptions made, and it was obvious that you didn't trust me to mean what I was saying. I worked very hard through that thread, to try to make you realize that I was in agreement with you, but basically no progress was made.
It feels to me that you always operate like a lawyer, trying to win a case. Competitive. Can you accept my word that from my perspective, I'm not trying to win, I'm trying to find agreement? That doesn't mean that I won't react with emotion, or that I don't have prejudices similar to the ones I accuse you of, but what I'm asking for is for people to make an effort to see from my perspective, because I'm tired of being dismissed merely because of the foregone conclusions about what it means to be an atheist, or that atheists are just plain wrong.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold: Years ago, Rivka made a post that said something like: "Wow that's the first thing Glenn Arnold has said that I actually agree with." Up to that point, I had seen her name, and probably had some back and forth conversation in the larger context of a variety of threads, but I'd never been conscious of specifically conversing with her. I was intrigued by her comment, and I asked her to explain what specifically she had disagreed with. You responded that she disagreed with everything I'd said about religion. She never responded at all.
Edit: It took some searching, but believe I found it. And your memory does not seem to quite agree with what I see.
Moreover, my initial comment was quite clearly a joke about the Evils of WalMart!
I know. And frankly I think your comment was a throwaway comment, not necessarily deserving of response. I assumed it was meant to point out that whatever I had said was deserving of notice, so I took it as a sort of compliment. But it piqued my curiosity because I didn't know if you meant that you usually disagreed with my viewpoint, or that you meant that I was specifically wrong about things.
And I assumed that you never responded because Dag had summed up what your answer might have been.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:And your memory does not seem to quite agree with what I see.
Well, you did respond, but didn't answer. So yeah, Dag answered for you. But as I said, I took it as a sort of compliment anyway.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Ok, first. I apologise. You're right, you asked for clarification.
Thank you for the apology and the explanation.
quote:but what I'm asking for is for people to make an effort to see from my perspective, because I'm tired of being dismissed merely because of the foregone conclusions about what it means to be an atheist
That's fair. From my perspective, though, I wasn't dismissing you.
I dismiss KoM quite often, and feel no regret in doing so. You, I asked for clarification and wrote a full response to my then-current interpretation.
quote:It feels to me that you always operate like a lawyer, trying to win a case.
It's not that I'm trying to win a case. It's that I care deeply about this issue and see a lot of nuanced, intricate aspects to it. I like to examine those issues in a lot of detail.
quote:Years ago when I was first made aware of your SCOTUS case, I told you that I agreed with the merit of the case, from your perspective. Yet your response to my comment forced me to defend my statement, which made no sense to me at all. Again, there were assumptions made, and it was obvious that you didn't trust me to mean what I was saying. I worked very hard through that thread, to try to make you realize that I was in agreement with you, but basically no progress was made.
In that discussion I never doubted your opinion on the case. I think I understood you perfectly, and what we discussed subsequently wasn't really about the case. It was about how other people viewed the establishment clause. I didn't intend anything in that discussion to question your view on religious freedom, but to point out that some people definitely try to use the First Amendment as a club against religion.
quote:Can you accept my word that from my perspective, I'm not trying to win, I'm trying to find agreement?
Yes. Can you accept my word about the same thing?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold: Well, you did respond, but didn't answer.
I did the first time, actually. I didn't see the point the second (or third) time -- it was a joke, and making it serious was not something I had any interest in doing.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Boy, everything's on record, isn't it? Leaves no room for faulty memory. And I've never been good at searching these things out.
But Ok.
quote:It's not that I'm trying to win a case. It's that I care deeply about this issue and see a lot of nuanced, intricate aspects to it. I like to examine those issues in a lot of detail.
I don't know what to say about that. I feel intimidated by your style, and I think you should be aware of that.
Anyway:
quote:Yes. Can you accept my word about the same thing?
I'd just say yes, but a more honest answer is that I'll try. We've been through this before, after all.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't know what to say about that. I feel intimidated by your style, and I think you should be aware of that.
That's surprising to me. If I had to make a list of people I intimidated, you wouldn't have made it past the very first cut. I doubt I'd even have entertained the thought for a minute.
But I'm aware of it now.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold: Boy, everything's on record, isn't it? Leaves no room for faulty memory. And I've never been good at searching these things out.
I didn't remember it at all, so I'm glad I could find it. I try not to be dismissive (except of a few specific posters, and you are definitely not among their number), so it bothered me that you felt I had been.
But honestly, I'm still not sure why you brought it up. I disagree with Dags on a whole bunch of things. I don't expect that to ever change. Doesn't mean I don't like him.
And the same goes for you. Expecting an avowed theist to agree with you on God and religious beliefs seems like an exercise in futility -- and it's rarely been my goal when discussing religion to change anyone's mind about their beliefs. Maybe about what constitutes acceptable behavior to those they disagree with. But mostly, to me, it's about being heard and understood.
The occasional times someone agrees with me are a bonus. Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm kind of glad we don't have laws like that here. During the civil rights movement, black people peacefully sitting at a lunch counter asking to be served might have been considered to be creating a disturbance (the disturbance being the thugs who were wanting to shove them off the stools and kick them through the door), and arrested. In many cases they WERE arrested, of course, but our courts held that it was legal for them to peacefully be there, and that the people threatening to harm them were the ones who needed to be arrested. I'm very glad to live in the United States.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Expecting an avowed theist to agree with you on God and religious beliefs seems like an exercise in futility -- and it's rarely been my goal when discussing religion to change anyone's mind about their beliefs. Maybe about what constitutes acceptable behavior to those they disagree with. But mostly, to me, it's about being heard and understood.
That's why I say I'm searching for common ground. But it seems much easier for people of different religious background, as opposed to people with and without religious belief.
Religion is pretty good at coming up with slogans that have meaning, and that people take to heart. Some of those are divisive, but most of the ones that people remember speak to the common values that everyone agree are good. I've kind of latched on to Ecclesiastes, and the idea that (assuming there is a God) then he must have made atheists for a purpose.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: As long as people stop acting self-righteously about how much better their countries are with respect to civil liberties, I don't particularly care. There's been a lot of that lately, with no acknowledgment at all that what's really happening is that some countries are balancing competing rights differently.
I believe that the second part is definitely worth repeating and in that exact wording, "balancing competing rights differently."
If you consider this as a sliding scale of "how much the majority can control the speech of a minority" it is clear that Norway's "the police will move you if you are causing a disturbance" slider is farther along than the US slider. However, it also seems apparent that the US is not entirely stuck at the endpoint of the scale. After all, without commenting on the relative merits of the two systems, many states do have a restriction (150 metres in Indiana) on protesting at funerals and without jumping into the legalese, there is the "shouting fire in a crowded theatre" exception. One could theoretically conceive of a more "free" society without these two restrictions and yet it would not be immediately obvious that it would in fact be better.
Thus it seems to me that, not only is it that other countries may find a difference balance for competing rights, it is well worth debating which balance is actually the optimal. Perhaps it may even happen that different populations and cultures may find different balances optimal.
One obvious example in my mind would be the different approaches to property/land rights taken in Hong Kong (pre-1997 or otherwise) as compared to North America. I suspect that either approach would be a disaster if transplanted across, although I would certainly appreciate a dialing-down of the NIMBY politics here.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:I've kind of latched on to Ecclesiastes, and the idea that (assuming there is a God) then he must have made atheists for a purpose.
Hmm... is this something you want to discuss, or is this a throwaway statement?
Not a throwaway statement at all. I think there are two approaches to discussing it however. One is to give my ideas, and the other is to ask theists what they think about it.
I've actually seen similar ideas used as challenged by aggressive atheists to theists. Like: "If your god exists, why does he force you to use faith to believe, rather than just showing himself?" That's a rude way of putting it, but it's part of what got me thinking. If god has a purpose for everything, then he must have a purpose for atheists. Or another way of looking at it, if he makes himself hard to detect specifically so that some people won't believe in him, he must have a reason.
What comes to mind is that everyone interprets God differently. Wait. Everyone interprets everything differently. That is to say we all create our own reality by incorporating our own personal experiences in to schemata composed of prior knowledge. Every one is colored by a different set of experiences.
(Seems like free will ought to fit in this argument somewhere. I'll just drop that out there as a lemma. Maybe it'll come in handy)
When you look at the problems that exist in the world because of conflict between different religions, what it comes down to is that each religion is different because people experience reality differently. I wouldn't expect to have one perfect religion that meets everybody's needs.
But that conflict is a big problem. How do you deal with it? It's always nice when members of different religions get together to get along, but what about when opposing religious leaders each make assertions that imply the "wrongness" of their opponents? The leaders are, after all, the authorities on their respective religions, and being leaders, they have followers that believe and obey.
This brings me back to how people interpret things differently. Does it make sense that when people can't agree because their beliefs are colored by theism, that a person whose beliefs are not colored by theism might be more impartial, at least in some situations?
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
