Dismantling Civil Society

[Beavah 205]

In the original thread, Merlyn suggests that it's an OK thing to go to loggerheads with folks and be fanatical about issues of rights or perceived infringements or whatnot, with Hunt makin' the opposite case.

 

Let me cast a vote for Hunt. I think a Scout should be courteous, kind, and patient.

 

One of the most common killers of troops and causes of lost scouts that I have seen in all my years with the program is when adults dig in their heels on some "serious issue" or another. They off and declare the other side "wrong", then define "wrong" as "evil/wicked/out to get me/out to hurt my kid" which justifies any and all kinds of attacks and behavior on their part.

 

The result is almost always a weaker Scoutin' program, with half the folks gone. Or it's a folded unit. (which is why I'm generally tryin' to tone down people's extreme declarations around here, eh? )

 

I think da same thing is true in society at large. When one group or another digs in its heels and starts yellin' that the others are "wrong", and then defines wrong as "evil/out to get me" so as to justify attacking it, all of society suffers. We balkanize. We dismantle the ways of thinkin' that make us society. And we do it at our peril.

 

So yah, Merlyn and company draw the line over religious expression in schools. So the fastest growin' school system in the nation are private Christian Academies and homeschoolers, which in turn mean less $ and less support for "public" schools, less interaction of ideas, and more citizens apt to vote in stark ways that Merlyn doesn't like. That doesn't give us the best public officials now, does it Merlyn? As Hunt suggests, bein' extreme only hardens the other side, and pushes the moderates away from you.

 

Me, I'm all in favor of youth programs. I don't particularly care who offers 'em, I welcome them in communities and schools. NGOs like Catholic Social Services do great work, and have an important place in the public square. I'm a Christian and personally feel Islam is misguided or even blasphemous, but I'd put up with a crescent or a Koran quote on a public building, especially where the people who paid for that public building were largely Muslim. A decoration ain't worth bein' uncivil over.

 

We can try to emulate Iraq, where the "other side" of Sunni/Shia/Kurd is "wrong"/evil/out to get me. Is that the kind of legacy we want to leave our children? A country in tatters, that can only be held together by a dictator of some sort? I think it takes courage and compassion to recognize that a decoration or a reduced rent or a reflection offered at a football game ain't the same as Stormtroopers come to get your family. But that's how we build a civil society, by showing respect in the public square.

 

Beavah

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Beavah lies:

So yah, Merlyn and company draw the line over religious expression in schools.

 

No, I don't, and I certainly don't think it's "civilized" for you to make up positions I don't hold and dishonestly ascribe them to me.

 

We can try to emulate Iraq, where the "other side" of Sunni/Shia/Kurd is "wrong"/evil/out to get me.

 

And where the government doesn't support religious equality.

 

Is that the kind of legacy we want to leave our children?

 

No.

 

A country in tatters, that can only be held together by a dictator of some sort? I think it takes courage and compassion to recognize that a decoration or a reduced rent or a reflection offered at a football game ain't the same as Stormtroopers come to get your family.

 

Ah, so as long as I can come up with a more extreme abridgement of civil rights, lesser civil rights abridgements are "OK"? Are you sure you want to go down that road?

 

But that's how we build a civil society, by showing respect in the public square.

 

Are you saying the only way to "show respect" is to show favoritism to the majority at the expense of the minority?

 

Is reduced rent so important to you that you're willing to ride roughshod over my rights?

 

Wow, that's really sticking your neck out. Inconveniencing YOUR particular group is showing it disrespect, but inconveniencing others who are NOT in your group is not only acceptable, it's nearly required so as to not inconvenience your group.

 

Yes, yes, I agree both you and Hunt are much more polite and tolerant when it comes to ignoring the rights of atheists.

[Venividi 35]

Wow, Merlyn,

 

I think you just provided an example of the point that I beleive Beavah was trying to make. And I am one that DOES believe that religion/prayers/etc. belong in the home and the church and DO NOT belong in public schools, nor that private organizations should get special treatment from government bodies.

 

I think that you bring a lot of good points into these discussions and provide a viewpoint that is worth sharing, but I think a lot of people just tune out and dont hear or consider the logic behind the message because of the way its said.

 

Your style reminds me of Bill OReilly on the OReilly Factor. I have watched his show occasionally, and have found very little of what he says that I agree with. While I think it worth hearing and understanding the positions he expounds on, because they tend to be so counter to my own, I just can't take his "my position is the only right one" style, so I tune him out completely.

 

(I'll bet you never would have thought that anyone would compare you with Mr. OReilly. And I don't mean to single you out; there are others that post comments on their position in a similar style.)

[TheScout 10]

Beavah, God bless your good intentions, but for once I must agree with Merlyn.

 

Though a scout should be courteous, kind, and patient, he must also stick up for his beliefs. And stick up for them tooth and nail if need be. If you believe in your heart that something is right, there can be no other way.

 

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Venividi, my response to Beavah was because he made up a position that he apparently assumed I held and stated that I actually held that position.

 

He didn't even say "I assume Merlyn would draw the line over religious expression in schools," or, even better (though with more delay) ASK me my position on religious expression in schools.

 

Now, I would be somewhat irritated if someone did this and successfully guessed my actual position, but Beavah got it wrong.

 

Hunt did something similar a while back, and I reacted in the same way.

 

If someone doesn't ask me about a position on an issue that we haven't discussed and simply makes up something and states it as my position, it isn't a misunderstanding, it isn't making an assumption, it's someone lying about what I actually think.

 

There are all kinds of ways to have good arguments with valid logic, and have discussions over differing opinions, but making up crap about someone isn't one of them.

 

One part of having a civil society is to not make up crap about other people.

[evmori 11]

Why can't kids pray in public schools if they want to? Why can't a public school teach Creationism or the Koran or the Bible? There is nothing I know of that prohibits any of this.

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Kids CAN pray in public schools, Ed. Why don't you already know this?

 

Creationism can't be taught because it isn't science, it's religious dogma masquerading as science. As for teaching the bible or koran, you can teach about them in e.g. a comparative religion course. Teachers can't indoctrinate students in a religion, of course.

 

 

(fixed typo)(This message has been edited by Merlyn_LeRoy)

[Hunt 11]

Beavah, Merlyn certainly proved your point for you. Rather than trying to correct your misunderstanding of his position in a polite way, instead he called you a liar. That's a great way of persuading you of the rightness of his outlook. Proverbs 15:1 says, "A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger."

 

I agree that there's a major problem in our society with people demonizing those with whom they disagree. You can see this most blatantly with respect to hot-button issues like abortion, where the extremes don't even believe that the other side is sincere in its reasons for its position. It's a pity, and it's hard not to get sucked in.

[packsaddle 753]

Moth zeroing in on the candle....

I actually respect both views on this for different reasons. I respect Merlyn's view because he is usually very meticulous about his ideas and I enjoy his sharp analysis. If we read him carefully, he is actually trying to show us a problem with BSA policy and his way to solve it. Some of us agree with him.

At the same time, I recognize that he has thin skin on some things (who doesn't?) and sometimes crafts responses whose tone actually detracts from very good logical points. Again, there are few of us who are not also guilty of that (except OGE, of course).

 

Beavah's point is also good because it supports a dispassionate (polite, if you will) mode of discourse. I'm glad he is here to help dampen the emotions (mine included) when they get the best of us. Nevertheless, I continue to support the general approach that we should attack ideas not people, and that when our idea is thus attacked we must try not to take it personally. Most of us have some good ideas from time to time but we all must admit...we cook up some really flawed ideas as well.

Here's the problem:

If someone with whom we often disagree attacks our idea and shows its flaws to the forum in an impolite manner, we should respond (even if only to ourselves) by politely thanking them for the service of relieving us of a thinking error. They actually have done us a service, even if they intended to make us feel badly about it. It's just an idea, after all, right?

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Hunt, what both you and Beavah did was NOT a misunderstanding, because both of you made statements about my supposed political positions before we had had a discussion on that issue. It could only be a misunderstanding if I said something that was misinterpreted.

 

What both of you DID do was to just assume you already knew what my position was (without actually asking me, and, since I had not discussed it, my position was not apparent) and then stated it as if it was my position. In my book, that's lying. And no, labelling a lie as a lie is not impolite in my book, either. Distinguishing between a misunderstanding and a lie can be important.

 

In both cases, it looks to me like each of you are assuming that I not only defend the rights of atheists, but that I am actually against the rights of theists, which is not at all true.

[Beavah 205]

Yah, so Merlyn, if I misinterpreted your position or otherwise put words in your mouth, I apologize, eh? I'll try your words this time.

 

Ah, so as long as I can come up with a more extreme abridgement of civil rights, lesser civil rights abridgements are "OK"? Are you sure you want to go down that road?

 

Yes, I'm quite sure. I think if we're intelligent enough to recognize that there are differences between extreme, mild, and incidental impingements on others, that we should also be bright enough to match our responses to those different levels.

 

For mild and incidental things, I suggest that understanding and tolerance are good choices, rather than makin' mountains out of molehills.

 

Is reduced rent so important to you that you're willing to ride roughshod over my rights?

 

LOL. I can't see how the rent for a buildin' in Philly really affects your life at all mate, let alone "rides roughshod" over your rights. There's all kinds of things I wish my tax dollars weren't goin' toward, or where (as in this case) I think the taxes or fees should be higher. Doesn't affect my rights none.

 

I see many actions of government as just an expression of the society. If you had an Atheists youth program that was serving 40,000 young people in the city of Philadelphia, of course I'd support a reduced rent for your group. Though I disagree with your beliefs, you're doin' good work for kids, and are an expression of that society. I'd be happy to tolerate your odd beliefs in exchange for such a sizable contribution to a lot of young people.

 

Certainly wouldn't be somethin' I'd get uncivil about.

 

Beavah

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

I accept your apology.

 

Beavah writes:

For mild and incidental things, I suggest that understanding and tolerance are good choices

 

But I disagree that official support of religious discrimination is "incidental"; I consider pretty much any such situation as rather serious.

 

I can't see how the rent for a buildin' in Philly really affects your life at all mate, let alone "rides roughshod" over your rights.

 

I meant it as "my rights" in the sense of every individual's rights. Atheists in Philadelphia should not have their city support an organization that denegrates them.

 

I see many actions of government as just an expression of the society.

 

YES! And one thing the government is prohibited from "expressing" is the idea that one group is inferior because of their religious views, by favoring a group that allows everyone except that denegrated group.

 

If you had an Atheists youth program that was serving 40,000 young people in the city of Philadelphia, of course I'd support a reduced rent for your group.

 

I would not, unless this reduced rent was equally available to every similar group regardless of who they admit or exclude. Note that the deal the BSA has with Philly is not equally available to any and all groups.

[PeteM 10]

Quote [Merlyn_LeRoy]: >>>> Teachers can't indoctrinate students in a religion, of course.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

The 14th amendment incorporates first amendment protections against infringement by state governments; before then, states (and state public schools) could have official religions and use public money to promote them. They can't now, and public schoolteachers, when teaching in public schools are state actors, and cannot promote religion, as that would violate the students' first amendment rights (which now also apply to state governments via the 14th amendment).

[evmori 11]

Creationism can't be taught because it isn't science, it's religious dogma masquerading as science.

 

More than science is taught in schools. And you explanation of why it isn't a science is a hoot!

 

Teachers can't indoctrinate students in a religion, of course.

 

As Ricky use to say "You gonna have to splain that, Lucy".

 

Ready for attack General!

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10