I just spent the last hour putting together, with fastidious care, a post (that I can't edit, due to the crappy messageboard I posted it on) that hopefully will diffuse an argument.
The situation is that I have a South African Christian adolescent who asked a very inflammatory question on that forum about masturbation as a sin.
The other party to the debate, a Californian Catholic soldier, has some very strong views indeed about the whole thing. They've been arguing for a few weeks now about the issue and generally winding eachother up. I've been letting it do its own thing up until today, but I figured I needed to do someting about it because it's getting a bit... Well, I can virtually hear the theme tune to Mission Impossible when I open that thread.
So I've put together the following:
QUOTE
My good people, may I interject?
I appreciate that this issue brings up a lot of strong, and more to the point, conflicting, beliefs for a lot of people here. It is utterly understandable that each of us wants to defend our point of view, and that strongly-conflicting ones are unpalatable to us.
I think it would be a shame for there to be bad feeling here, considering that TNR is supposed to be a forum to which people come for emotional bolster.
As far as I can see, the conflict comes from the fact that there are two very different opinions coming out of this debate.
You, Matt, are putting forward a strongly-defined opinion. This is reasonable: you were, after all, asked.
On the other hand we have Kate (Matt, just in case you were unsure that's her's name) who is keen to have her voice heard in stating that there are grey areas to the issues surrounding sex and marriage. Your beliefs, Kate, are equally as strong as Matt's, but clearly different in the details from his.
The conflict I see here stems from the fact that both of you are debating the point as if your religous view is 'the' right one, as if your belief is solid fact. This is perfectly understandable, as your beliefs are central to who you are. The problem is that they do not fit together comfortably at all.
May I make a suggestion? And I make this humbly as I am traditionally seen as something of a 'low atheist' by comparison to the more righteous religious people.
My position with regards religion needs to be reasonably flexible. I 'know' I'm right that all of this doesn't matter just as much as Matt 'knows' that the Catholic Church are the ultimate authorities and their doctrines must be adhered to and Kate 'knows' that directions for religious behaviour should come from the heart/soul. But I ask both of you to attain a little flexibility as I often must.
Both your beliefs are honourable - you are both trying to find the most ethical, well-balanced and noble way forward. You have both looked at the situation of religion and find your respective paths to be the most likely to be right. I am not asking you to change your beliefs: I am asking for each of you to bend, just a little.
Matt, it's conceivable that you sound a little fiery in your assertions regarding the C.C's doctrines.
Kate, I think that you feel Matt is stepping on your toes by stating his beliefs - different from yours - so assertively. Matt is offering help in the best way he can and his beliefs are important enough to him that he wants to communicate them. But listening to his views are not the same as obeying them.
You are both good thinkers and argue from your respective corners with a great deal of fortitude. But arguing like this has not, and possibly will not, bring any real benefit.
Together, I think we can debate these important points in a more harmonious way. Do you both think you can do this?
I appreciate that this issue brings up a lot of strong, and more to the point, conflicting, beliefs for a lot of people here. It is utterly understandable that each of us wants to defend our point of view, and that strongly-conflicting ones are unpalatable to us.
I think it would be a shame for there to be bad feeling here, considering that TNR is supposed to be a forum to which people come for emotional bolster.
As far as I can see, the conflict comes from the fact that there are two very different opinions coming out of this debate.
You, Matt, are putting forward a strongly-defined opinion. This is reasonable: you were, after all, asked.
On the other hand we have Kate (Matt, just in case you were unsure that's her's name) who is keen to have her voice heard in stating that there are grey areas to the issues surrounding sex and marriage. Your beliefs, Kate, are equally as strong as Matt's, but clearly different in the details from his.
The conflict I see here stems from the fact that both of you are debating the point as if your religous view is 'the' right one, as if your belief is solid fact. This is perfectly understandable, as your beliefs are central to who you are. The problem is that they do not fit together comfortably at all.
May I make a suggestion? And I make this humbly as I am traditionally seen as something of a 'low atheist' by comparison to the more righteous religious people.
My position with regards religion needs to be reasonably flexible. I 'know' I'm right that all of this doesn't matter just as much as Matt 'knows' that the Catholic Church are the ultimate authorities and their doctrines must be adhered to and Kate 'knows' that directions for religious behaviour should come from the heart/soul. But I ask both of you to attain a little flexibility as I often must.
Both your beliefs are honourable - you are both trying to find the most ethical, well-balanced and noble way forward. You have both looked at the situation of religion and find your respective paths to be the most likely to be right. I am not asking you to change your beliefs: I am asking for each of you to bend, just a little.
Matt, it's conceivable that you sound a little fiery in your assertions regarding the C.C's doctrines.
Kate, I think that you feel Matt is stepping on your toes by stating his beliefs - different from yours - so assertively. Matt is offering help in the best way he can and his beliefs are important enough to him that he wants to communicate them. But listening to his views are not the same as obeying them.
You are both good thinkers and argue from your respective corners with a great deal of fortitude. But arguing like this has not, and possibly will not, bring any real benefit.
Together, I think we can debate these important points in a more harmonious way. Do you both think you can do this?
Which I hold my breath and hope will get the two to calm down. I feel like I've been tip-toeing over broken glass for the whole time I've written that. She, I think, will do so happily enough, but he may take exception. I don't know. I think I should get a bulletproof vest.
Sod that, I think I should emigrate. Europa's supposed to be quite hospitable, isn't it?
Wish me luck.
EDIT: He's since decided to leave the forum, so it seems the problem is over.
Message to Rocky: this moderation stuff, it's an effort, innit?
