tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13399254.post111784285987093495..comments2024-02-14T11:04:27.663-05:00Comments on Free and Responsible Search: Red Family, Blue Family -- the sermonDoug Muderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04666144843949850394noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13399254.post-1167161324812755272006-12-26T14:28:00.000-05:002006-12-26T14:28:00.000-05:00My bonus-daughter (daughter of the woman I married...My bonus-daughter (daughter of the woman I married after my divorce, just to set the scene ;-) ) drew my attention to your "Red Family, Blue Family"-paper a few hours ago. I think it highlights a lot of issues an a very inspiring manner.<BR/><BR/>But I would like to add to the subject: "What do Right-Wing people think they know better than us liberals since they do not convert voluntarily?"<BR/><BR/>Consider making "psychopathy" a key metaphor. Start by assuming that some of us are psychopaths and some are not. Then, realize that in a world of freedom and chosen relations, psychopaths thrive, and empathic liberals seem unable to prevent them from doing so. In a world of given relations, on the contrary, psychopaths are tamed like all other people.<BR/><BR/>The next step is to embrace (what I believe is) the attitude of professionals: Psychopathy does not exist as a well-defined psychological condition, it is a genuine metaphor used to push people you do not like away to a position which does not threaten your desire to feel good and responsible.<BR/><BR/>You may then recognize that the Right-Wing position may be considered wise by sane people: If psychopathy is out there, but psychopaths are not identifiable, a system which tames everybody is more efficient than a system which needs to trace down psychopaths in order to preserve its identity of being free and responsible at the same time.<BR/><BR/>Look at history, and you should see that efficient handling of psychopathy may prevent a disaster or two.<BR/><BR/>I am myself able to argue against some of my statements above. I just wanted to add what I see as a somewhat disregarded aspect of the discussion.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13399254.post-1158679502584168642006-09-19T11:25:00.000-04:002006-09-19T11:25:00.000-04:00Bill,The answer to your question "So?" is that mem...Bill,<BR/><BR/>The answer to your question "So?" is that members of the conservative churches don't have more divorces because the churches target divorced people. People join the churches, THEN get divorced.<BR/><BR/>You're interpreting my piece as an attack on the conservative churches, when I see the conservatives as the attackers. We're constantly faced with the message that THEY represent family values and we want to tear familes down.<BR/><BR/>But if you look at the facts, our families work pretty damn well compared to theirs. If they would stop attacking us, we wouldn't need to point this out. But we do need to point it out.Doug Muderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04666144843949850394noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13399254.post-1158635777428736212006-09-18T23:16:00.000-04:002006-09-18T23:16:00.000-04:00"90% of all divorced born-again folk divorced AFTE...<EM>"90% of all divorced born-again folk divorced AFTER they accepted Christ."</EM><BR/><BR/>So?Bill Baarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07095486926836836714noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13399254.post-1151413229270689092006-06-27T09:00:00.000-04:002006-06-27T09:00:00.000-04:00Now I'll respond to anonymous' comment about the v...Now I'll respond to anonymous' comment about the virulence of the Right's antipathy toward gays.<BR/><BR/>I don't fully understand it either. I don't think the not-having-children argument is key, because I have a childless marriage myself and don't experience anything like the degree of denunciation that gay couples get. Also, religious-right folks would be happy if my wife and I adopted, but not if a gay couple adopted<BR/><BR/>I think gays and lesbians threaten the Right's vision of separate gender roles. They confuse the Right's definitions of what it means to be a man or a woman, and especially a father and a mother.<BR/><BR/>Gender segregation is also key to the Right's desire to put sex in a box. In an all-male military, for example, they'd like to assume that they've removed sex from the equation. But what if the soldiers are gay? That's why so many of the no-gays-in-the-military people are also the no-women-in-combat people.Doug Muderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04666144843949850394noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13399254.post-1151412638184094422006-06-27T08:50:00.000-04:002006-06-27T08:50:00.000-04:00Sorry I've done such a bad job of keeping track of...Sorry I've done such a bad job of keeping track of comments and responding to them.<BR/><BR/>I'll respond to bill baar's wife's comment here: Ronald J. Sider in "The Scandal of the Evangelical Conscience" anticipated your wife's objection and notes on page 16 quotes a study saying "90% of all divorced born-again folk divorced AFTER they accepted Christ."Doug Muderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04666144843949850394noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13399254.post-1147026586701599222006-05-07T14:29:00.000-04:002006-05-07T14:29:00.000-04:00We discussed your Sermon last night at Framing the...We discussed your Sermon last night at Framing the Discussion at the <A HREF="http://www.uusg.org/" REL="nofollow">Unitarian-Universalist Society of Geneva Illinois.</A><BR/><BR/>I was troubled by it. <BR/><BR/>The divorce statistics especially, which seemed to be a return to some long gone New England Puritianism: <EM>We lead virtous lives Look at our stats! We must be right.</EM><BR/><BR/>Also showed your statistics and this quote to my wife:<BR/><BR/><EM>You have to understand the Right to criticize it effectively. Those divorce statistics, for example, really bug them. How can they frame themselves as the stronghold of family values if their families don’t hold together as well as the atheists’ do?</EM><BR/><BR/>...and her reaction was of course the non-denominatonal Christian Right have more divorced people. They target people in need: the divorced, the addicts; any one in crisis. <BR/><BR/>Our mega Churches here in St Charles Illinois offer a whole host of programs for people seeking somekind of healing.<BR/><BR/>So it stands to reason they share a disproportinate number of sinners (using an archaic terms perhapes).<BR/><BR/>How at home could a sinner be in a UU Church which holds out statistics about our virtues?<BR/><BR/>This is a troubling perspective on Unitarian Universalism indeed.<BR/><BR/>I'll forward this to our whole group in UUSG....<BR/><BR/>Do take this in a spirit of goodwill because while I found your sermon troubling (and my wife -who went through a failed marriage- found down right offensive), I do think it starts a discussion UUs ought have.Bill Baarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07095486926836836714noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13399254.post-1147026411872004362006-05-07T14:26:00.000-04:002006-05-07T14:26:00.000-04:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Bill Baarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07095486926836836714noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13399254.post-1147026212491809382006-05-07T14:23:00.000-04:002006-05-07T14:23:00.000-04:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Bill Baarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07095486926836836714noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13399254.post-1127853292335378602005-09-27T16:34:00.000-04:002005-09-27T16:34:00.000-04:00I want to thank you for expressing so well, and so...I want to thank you for expressing so well, and so compassionately, how Ault and Lakoff help explain how these perspectives differ. In particular it is important to do so in a respectful and affirming way, truly in accord with UU principles. <BR/><BR/>I always find myself surprised that my wonderful neighbor sees no contradiction between being at once compassionate, generous, and intelligent, while fully identifying herself with the LDS church; and I think of my aunt, who makes the most despicably racist remarks about every imaginable minority but spends her holidays cooking for and literally serving homeless minorities through her Catholic church. There is no question but that these prejudices on my part limit my own ability to live my own principles. <BR/><BR/>But the analysis does not explain everything. In particular, how can these concepts properly account for such widespread and virulent antipathy toward gay marriage--and indeed, toward homosexuality itself? How do the strict parent frames dictate the degree of this animousity? <BR/><BR/>Using the Lakoff/Ault perspective, one may construct an argument to account for it, thus: <BR/> <BR/>A. Premise--(No one in his right mind would have and raise children unless compelled to do so). If I see my neighbor getting away with not having and raising children, I will want to do the same, just as I will want to steal things and fornicate with many women if I know I can get away with doing that. <BR/><BR/>B. Premise--The purpose of the family is to have and raise children. Being in a family and not having children destroys the purpose of the family.<BR/><BR/>D. Premise--When families do not have and raise children, society will be destroyed. <BR/><BR/>E. Those who tempt others not to have children thus destroy the purpose of the family and as a result, destroy society. <BR/><BR/>F. The idea that one can choose whether to have and raise children is a temptation. Anyone or anything that exemplefies, spreads, or promotes this idea therefore destroys families and society. <BR/><BR/>G. Families in which people choose when and whether to have children serve as examples that tempt others not to have children.<BR/><BR/>H. Therefore families in which people choose when and whether to have children destroy the purpose of the family and thereby destroy society. <BR/><BR/>I. Gay families in particular choose when and whether to have children. Therefore they serve as examples which tempt families not to have children and destroy the purpose of the family and also destroy society. Gay families promote and spread the idea that one can choose whether to have and raise children. Therefore they are especially dangerous to families and society. <BR/><BR/>Isn't this overly rational? There is something much more primal about the almost uncontrollable fear, hatred, and loathing--even rage--which so many of the "Red Families" feel toward gay people. It is almost as if they fear that heterosexual men and boys, if they think they can get away with it, will travel a downward path of moral degradation through cheating, stealing, and hetrosexual fornication, arriving finally at the ultimate wickedness: homosexual lust... a concept to my mind so much at variance with the actual inclination and conduct of most heterosexuals--at least, with the vast majority of those I am aware of--as to be hysterically risible. I mean no disparagement to any gay person when I say this, but personally I am just plain heterosexual. Under the right circumstances, I expect I could conceivably wish to steal things, or perhaps even want to commit adultery or murder; but I can't possibly imagine summoning up any inclination whatever to "choose the gay lifestyle." Ironically, if there is anything one does not choose, it is probably one's sexual orientation. <BR/><BR/>Somehow there is something more than a chain of premise and deduction at work here, based upon irrational premises perhaps but reasonable enough within its own framework. Whenever we are concerned with dehumanizing some people or group of people we definitively hate and fear, we see them as a direct sexual threat. Or this is some fear that one's children will be posessed by a demonic force--or, perhaps much the same thing, a terror of them being replaced with a changeling. <BR/><BR/>I would very much like to read your response to this question.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13399254.post-1117891036303830012005-06-04T09:17:00.000-04:002005-06-04T09:17:00.000-04:00As as said at the talk-back after the service, thi...As as said at the talk-back after the service, this was an outstanding sermon. This not only gives us the ability to think how we might take back some of the moral ground lost to the right, but also helps us to better understand how they think. Understanding leads to tolerance and acceptance -- never a bad thing, in my opinion.Mark J. Nortonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10131712987999013121noreply@blogger.com