At 08:53 2003-12-09 +1300, I wrote: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LessIsMore/message/12876 (after signing-in) is At 09:28 2003-12-08 -0600, Diane wrote to LessIsMore: > >The reason I labeled it off OT is that I don't like to blanket LIM with my religious beliefs without a suitable warning. > At 12:36 2003-12-08 -0600, she wrote, with title: "Diane's OT reply: Re: new data on 'born again' Christians": > >I am always amazed when I read things like this. I am going to respond to this but I imagine it won't be of any interest except those people who are interested in Christianity. So I'm giving fair warning to delete here for most LIMers. > · I am puzzled about the common opinion that you should restrict statements about yourself and your own beliefs in case they offend someone else. · Why worry, about someone else taking offense? It's not _their_ business, what _you_ believe! · I see nothing to lose, and everything to gain by: David saying: "there is no god" and Diane saying: "God exists, and Jesus Christ is my saviour". · What's the problem? Priscilla's: http://www.worldmag.com/world/issue/12-06-03/cultural_4.asp included: “.. conservative Christians ... interested in converting the heathen ... In Acts 19, the Apostle Paul came across a group of people who said that they were Christians, but they had never heard of the Holy Spirit. They had to be reevangelized and rebaptized.” · They "said that they were Christians", so presumably they _wanted_ to be "reevangelized and rebaptized." · Fair enough; I, as an atheist, have no quarrel with Christians, Muslims, Taoists, Buddhists - whoever - making the main features of their beliefs open to anyone to take up for themselves. Maori, to a large degree, were very happy to have the opportunity to learn about Christianity (in the early 19th century), and to take up that belief. · Why should anyone be offended when some other person doesn't have the same beliefs? · Diane and I have no quarrel; why should others be offended by what either of us believes? David. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - At 11:05 2003-12-09 +1300, I wrote: · First; getting a side-track out of the way. At 08:23 2003-12-08 -0000, Gary wrote: > >Regarding David's posting: What's it to me what someone believes and >why they believe it? It's only important when those believers try to >change the Constitution or declare wars in the name of their God, for >example. Then it matters. It becomes very relevant to my life and >the security of my family. (I am not referring to dialogs on LIM, of >course.) > · So someone with power, in public office or CEO of a major corporation or influential think-tank: _these_ people must submit to having their belief- statements scrutinised before they get to have such power. Ordinary people's belief-statements aren't so important. Right? · Now to what I have been puzzled/concerned about for years. At 03:48 2003-12-06 -0000, Gary wrote "Re: Iraqi Sovereignty": > ... >the head of the occupying force of an occupied nation visited his troops. ... (my bet) a hand-picked set of troops (marines and regular army ... I suspect) in order to get another great photo-op. > Great photos to be used for the election ... > >Speaking as a vet who has seen this all before, I believe Bush's audience [was] hand-picked ... to get the greatest impression of gung-ho, unanimous approval. Mr Bush is afraid to show himself to a wider audience, please notice. So he consistently chooses contrived audiences where dissent will never be uttered -- often "or else". > IMO our Prez is as effective a propandist as Adolph Hitler IMO. With similar results: "How come so many people are buying this guy?" I bet many a German asked the same about that radical Hitler. (Note that I am not comparing Bush to Hitler in any other respect than as a master of propaganda.) > ... At 02:25 2003-12-08 -0600, Diane wrote, re David's: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LessIsMore/message/12876 (after signing-in) :- > >A common response to opinions (especially unpopular ones) right now is that the holder/speaker of the opinion is practicing hate speech or being intolerant. Being intolerant is a big no-no in our country right now, IMO. > >So, I have found that when I want to discuss the merits of a particular issue, many people skip right over the details of why I believe a particular thing and go straight to the "you're being intolerant." > At 03:48 2003-12-08 -0500, Sharon F. wrote: >Just to add to what Diane said.... Political discourse in the U.S. has become so contentious that the assumption exists now that voicing one's opinion among those who may disagree is likely to lead to, at best, chilled relations, and at worst, fisticuffs. > ... >At breakfast last week, the discussion leader and my other grandpa friends were talking about this, wondering why it is so difficult for people to feel free to discuss their opinions in a non-confrontive way. > · I agree about the "chilled relations", but that's life, IMO. · I have lived for almost all my life in nations representing the vast majority of the world IMO (specifically Canada, Nigeria, New Zealand, Ghana, Britain, India, Malaysia), and people generally are _interested_ in others' _different_ opinions. They may dismiss them or they may want to hear more, but there's a basic tolerance, a realism I think, about the fact that others are _other_, different. · I _do_not_ understand why Americans, a big majority now-a-days, are so different from the rest of the world, different from "normal people". In the above quotes, I've included Gary's reference "our Prez is as effective a propandist as Adolph Hitler IMO." · But where's the scepticism about politicians' statements that I know most people in the world have? Why can the wool be pulled over Americans' and Germans' eyes so easily? · This could be labelled "gullible", but labelling doesn't help understand (i) whether there _is_ a real difference, and: (ii) if so, why, and what might be done to bring "sanity" or at least normality, to these easily-deluded ones. David.