RE: the ASA email list

Clarification:

I did not claim that those who oppose gay marriage necessarily hate gays. I
said that the current political climate is full of hate. The 'Christian'
position has not been put forth in a loving manner. 'Christians' have been
what I construe as spiteful, by putting pressure on large corporations,
including Microsoft, to remove insurance concessions that have been in place
for a good while. And with other actions which fail to even acknowledge that
homosexuals have some societal issues which need to be addressed. I also
sent a good bit of scientific information which I have gleaned from various
sources and asked for comment - which I did not get. I had hoped that there
would be discussion on the fact that there is substantial scientific
evidence that homosexuality is a 'natural' condition, in that it occurs in
nature in animal species, and how these facts should affect our approach as
educated Christians. The 'approach' part of this may be too political for
the 'return to basics' that is trying to be achieved, but the scientific
facts should not.

Just as many of you oppose creationism being taught in the schools (I do
not, by the way. Though I understand your reasoning that most teachers
cannot handle a discussion with students whose parents are highly
antagonistic and whose views have been passed on to their children - I would
still like teachers to have the freedom to let children discuss 'where did I
come from.') but, as you oppose the creationism being taught because
fundamentalists ignore scientific facts - so I believe that the current
political arena - particularly the religious righthand-out-theres -
ignores scientific facts in regard to homosexuality. They act out of all
proportion to anything in the Bible. Jesus didn't mention it - at least not
in the scriptures we have. What does that say?

I did not see anyone else mention the word 'hate' - so I figured I was being
taken out of context. I tried to make it clear that I myself cannot count
myself as a supporter of gay religious marriage. I see definite issues that
are worthy of discussion in the political realm - though I don't really want
to discuss them. However, I do see homosexuals as a part of society - not
just American society, but society everywhere - who should be treated with
respect and love and who should be given the means of living a life of
meaning and who should be welcomed in all Christian churches, though perhaps
not in positions of leadership.

Opposing gay marriage does not make one a political extremist. Being a
political extremist in this regard, may not make one guilty of hate - but
the evidence of the past several years tends to show an awful lot of it
being spread around.

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]On
Behalf Of Rich Blinne
Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 10:01 AM
To: George Murphy
Cc: Terry M. Gray; asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: the ASA email list

On 6/12/06, George Murphy <gmurphy@raex.com> wrote:

> IMNHO the single most problematic thing here is topics that are not in the
> science-religion area. Of course in one sense religion, as a matter of
> "ultimate concern" can include everything & some political issues are
> certainly of religious interest. But some practical limits are necessary.
> Political discussions ought to be out of bounds unless they are dealing
with
> things like legislation on stem cell uses, nuclear energy &c. & same sex
> unions - yes, I know I've been involved in these discussions - should be
> out. That doesn't mean that all discussions of homosexuality - scientific
> basis, religious treatment &c - should be out. But whether or not the
state
> &/or church should allow same sex marriage should be out.

One reason why I believe that political discussions are problematic is
because of the strong temptation to impute motives, e.g. people who
are for banning gay marriage do so because they hate gays. So, if it
comes to discussing politics I would suggest:

1. Focusing on why your position is a good idea and presuppose the
opposing view is done for noble and honorable reasons. This is also
applicable to on topic discussions such as theistic evolution vs. ID
vs. YEC.

2. Give an abstract of a quoted piece of material and then a link.
There is a reason why the e-mail vs. web is problematic, please be
respectful of those who have limited bandwidth.

3. Clearly identify provenance of a quote. Just as a naked quote in
number two is an issue a naked link is also not helpful. Prefer direct
quotes over links into internet discussions or blogs.

4. Get to the point and pick the one or two issues are of importance
and focus on them. Cull the rest in the text editor.

5. Be kind to the minority position (with respect to this list). For
example, most people here appear to be accommodationists. Pummelling
the concordists with many questions with the expectation of an on list
answer is unfair. If it is a good thing to have an on list answer then
extra grace should be given them with respect to the four post rule.
If it has gone back and forth a lot and there appears to be people
talking past each other then prefer the off list response to make sure
both sides truly understand each other. Be a Bill O'Reilly rather than
a Rush Limbaugh and let the other side get the last word.

6. If a topic goes astray ignore it or to use internet parlance don't
feed the trolls. This is the most difficult to do and many of us (and
me) are guilty of this. We also know who has our button and we should
be especially vigilant concerning them.

In summary, this list is unique and it would be a shame that it would
degenerate into yet another politics and religion shouting match.
Let's be good stewards here.
Received on Mon Jun 12 11:36:24 2006