It is quite good; and it is quite difficult for me. There are religious people on these threads who I really like. On the other hand, I do sincerely hate the textual supports of a great number of religions.
Furthermore, I consider that language as an argumentive tool ought ever to be available in all the richness of metaphor, satire, sarcasm, and the like--to make ones points, or to blunt the swordplay of others. I already did my little rant on this a little while ago.
I think the context is important. Some threads are designed to accomodate the barbarian acts of people such as Steven, yourself, Karen, and Poet.<g> Although there ought not to be any scorn at the person himself, it is inevitable that there is sometimes an actual animus toward the other party, irrespective of their religion or lack of same.
My best compromise is to be exceedingly careful with the feelings of those whom I like and respect when I speak directly to them about the subject...while hoping they will understand my need to use whatever tools of expression further my argument when I am rightfully expressing my personal opinions AND feelings. As Stephen said, in the context of 3d there would never be any dissing of someone's belief except in a trusted environment of good will and intellectual honesty.
Certainly, it is not for Neo to define the acceptable latitude of expression, and I found that whole detour somewhat annoying.
There are far too many variables in human interaction to precisely define what may or may not be said. We all must define for ourselves, within the limits of the TOU; and we must simply express who we are... |
