What is the purpose of this thread?
Mr. Wexler, you have a valid question. I'll try to answer it to the best of my ability. I feel like I know you since I read your thread often, so please allow me to address the rest of the posters on this thread as well.
To answer: the purpose was stated clearly in the header. Petitions are, as far as I know, a generally accepted way to find out people's opinion on a subject. The idea was to get a "yes" or a "no", and discover what support, if any, the petition had. Your suggestion of putting the information in front of GNET executives has been accomplished at the same time.
That goal of the petition appears to have been accomplished; there have been a smattering of yes votes, and many more no votes. I have the answer to my petition; there is not enough support among the readers of the thread to get Emile banned from SI.
But your question was astute, and there was more than one reason for the thread. Emile Vidrine appeared on another thread that I read, and caused trouble. I asked him to leave and go back to the thread he usually posts on, but he would not. My next step was to create this thread as a message to him, and to let others know about what I was looking at. He posted some posts subsequently that appear to have caused his suspension from SI. I imagine that in a few days, he will return.
The general feeling on this thread regarding the petition (and anyone can correct me if they feel I am in error) is that a member of SI must be allowed to have "free speech" regarding his religious beliefs. I assume that the posters that used that phrase were alluding to the Constitution of the United States. Additionally, there has always been an "unwritten rule" on the Internet that "you can say whatever you want."
Before I address these matters, let me tell you that my personal conviction is that a man's religion is a private matter, between him and the Almighty. I don't mind someone claiming that I am not a member of the "correct" religion, but I object very, very strongly to someone judging me (or anyone else) as "evil" because I do not agree with their personal interpretation of what is religiously "correct".
Since it appears to be germane to the subject, I'll tell you that I'm a Christian. I suppose if I had been raised in Iran, I would be a Moslem, or had I been raised in China, I might be a Buddhist. Some religious sects claim that a man is born "bad" and has to go through some process to get "good". I think the opposite is the truth, a man is born good, and goes through a process to turn bad.
I am convinced that there are good Christians and bad Christians, good Buddhists and bad, good Moslems and bad, and so on. But I don't think what I call good and bad are the same as some other people, so I'll explain that too.
I believe that the human beings on this planet are all pretty much trying to do the same thing: live a good life, stay out of trouble, and make things better when they go out than when they came in. These are good people, whatever way they choose to worship. They make mistakes, they feel bad about it, and they try to make up for what they did that was wrong.
I also believe that there are a very small minority of people that don't want that to happen. I believe that these people have very complex and sinister intentions. Without getting into a book about it, I think these few people are responsible for about 90% of the pain and suffering on this planet. Simply stated, they want other people to feel worse. There is, of course, an element of this in all of us, nobody is "perfect", I'm not talking about that.
What I am talking about is a person that "knows" they have the "inside line" on truth. They "know" what the truth is, and they will tell you what it is. Not only that, they will judge you as bad to some greater or lesser extent if you do not agree. I'm not talking about law/criminal acts/moral codes here. I am taking about someone that tells you you are flawed simply because you do not believe the same things he does. Sometimes, these people use a religion as their medium, sometimes they use a political agenda, but the bottom line is the same. They are causing trouble, and they are doing it on purpose. In other words, they are disrupting the normal flow of events and making things worse.
It's not a far stretch from pissing somebody off to the point where weapons appear, especially with religion. For example, telling a Buddhist that he is wrong, always has been wrong, and will burn in hell because he will not denounce Buddhism might piss the Buddhist off enough for him to swing a fist. Or, rounding up Christians and putting them in a pen with some large carnivores could really piss you off if your mom or dad was one of the Christians. You might try to exact some revenge against the guy who carried out that plan. You can make up any number of examples using whatever religion, race, or political agenda you wish.
To put it in a different way; let's say I'm a Moslem. One day, you walk up to me one day and say, "You know, it is my belief that what you were taught was not correct. You need to read about Taoism. Taoism is the true way to truth and happiness."
I maybe think, "Hum! That's interesting. I have never heard of Taoism. I'll check it out." And you do. You come to one of two conclusions, the guy was correct, or he was not. I'm simplifying it, of course. The conclusion you come to, in my opinion, is irrelevant. You found out something. You gained some knowledge. You are now better able to make decisions for yourself about both faiths.
The next day, some other guy I never saw before walks up to me and says, "I can tell from your hair that you are an American Indian. (false) Indians have been responsible for most of the bad things in this country. (false) You and your whole family are going to burn in eternity because you have failed to see that Taoism is the only way to discover truth. (I seriously doubt it.) I know this because I speak for the Almighty. (I truly doubt this also.) What I say is the truth, and everything else is a lie. (He's already lied to me, so I take this with a grain of salt.) You are not only ignorant, you are evil. (false) You must change to Taoism immediately. (false)"
As a citizen of the United States, I would find this objectionable, on several levels. You can see this, I assume.
Now we come to the question of "free speech". We live in the United States, and this person has a "right" to say what he said? This is a difficult question.
My response would be the following.
1. I would recognize that the person did not have control of his reasoning faculties. I might not mention it to him, but I would note it. I would note it because there is a short hop from accusing me of being responsible for past crimes, being ignorant and evil, to putting handcuffs on me and moving me against my will. This person is potentially dangerous to me.
2. I would point out that he was in error. This could take many forms. I might ridicule him publicly. I might laugh at him and ask him to go away.
3. I would be wary of his next move.
Some people might tell me to ignore him, he will go away. "Click right past him and move on."
That is one alternative. For some reason, that is not my style. It might be someone else's style, but it's not mine. I'd rather see how far this little fight will go. Unfortunately, I believe that the guy will walk up to the next person he sees and start his crap on them. So I'd maybe try and let others know who he was, and what he was doing. I've been unfortunate enough to look down the wrong end of an automatic weapon, and what they say is true. Afterwards, your life passes in front of you. It makes you sit up straight and pay more attention.
I used to know somebody like the person in my example, and if you want to know what hell is really like, I can give you a detailed description. I'd prefer it if my kids didn't have to put up with it. I want to leave this rock in better condition than when I arrived.
It's just my style, your style is fine with me too, as long as you don't tell me where to go to church. That's what the Constitution of the United States says. I don't believe that every lunatic in this country has the right to post whatever he wants to on SI.
What does all this have to do with Emile? His response to me was to conclude that I was a Jew or a Moslem (that's a bad thing, according to Emile) and a communist and Nazi. Strong stuff, eh? I myself have never met a Moslem Nazi; I don't even know if there is such a thing, but I sincerely hope Emile doesn't have Orders From Above to shoot.
Here is the exchange that brought Emile Vidrine to my attention. He responds to a born-again Christian (his own professed faith) who also happens to be intelligent, a published writer, the wife of a well known professional man, and the mother of two fine boys. Remember, I draw a fine line between opinion and judgement. You draw your own conclusion as to the intentions of this person. He never answered my questions, by the way.
Message 5257279
Message 5258709
Message 5319381
Thanks, Mr. Wexler
TLC
|
