Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (4027)	3/21/2002 4:26:14 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

I asked you to firm it up. You firmed it up. Thank you. I get so frustrated in discussions with parties who can't maintain focus. So it comes down to this: You cannot separate respect for belief with respect for the content of belief. If you are rolling your eyes at the burning bush, you are rolling your eyes at the person who believes in the burning bush. Contempt is contempt. I am having a hard time understanding your confusion. I have full appreciation for the special negativity of contempt. You've heard me complain enough about the contempt of certain elected officials for people with my religious beliefs. It's a particularly nasty way to treat people. I disagree, though, that ridiculing burning bushes is an expression of contempt for those who believe in them. Say you have a sister who has gotten herself into a series of bad relationships. She has terrible taste in men. Her current beau uses her and cheats on her but she believes he loves her and will eventually marry her. You, of course, think her belief is blind or silly or worse. Or say she believes she's been abducted by aliens. Or insists that vitamin supplements are a conspiracy to ruin our health. Or that the moon is made of cheese. Do you not still love your sister? Do you not hear how lovely her singing voice is? Or admire the way she handles kids and animals or can grow tomatoes? Or her skill at developing web pages? You think of her as a fine person--who happens to have a loose screw or two. You feel free to take your vitamins in front of her. If she challenges you, you tell her it's a screwy idea, throw up your hands, and enjoy her tomatoes and her voice. You don't feel contempt for her. And she doesn't feel like your arguments about vitamins show contempt for her. And I have trouble understanding your confusion about that. I think that one problem in being even handed in this is that the believers have more targets. Seculars can only be ridiculed for their "normal human reaction to the mysteries of existence." Believers can be ridiculed for that and also all the ritual, institutional, and scriptural baggage that goes with it, like burning bushes. We can both appreciate the problem of contempt for the normal human reaction part of it. It's the baggage that's at issue. And the ability to separate the person from the belief. Karen