This is the Internet so shit hardly ever gets real. Whatever is said is probably bullshit so attack it, slash it, and beat it into the ground. OK, that may be fun if you're playing GI Joe with Tonka trucks but it's actually possible to talk about things without gutting each other.
Facebook, surprisingly enough, has been uncharacteristically responsive lately to questions that directly challenge various positions but do it in a non-combative way. That invites discussion from both poles and those have been interesting. Sometimes there is no possibility of agreement but it's more remarkable that there is more agreement than may otherwise be apparent.
The article on where Democrats stand was an attempt to do that same thing. The objective was to state clearly what those principles have been as Republicans, as opposed to Teapugs, know their own principles and will not budge from them. Teapugs don't often know the principles or the history but actual Republicans typically are more literate and know both. That's where discussion can get interesting.
A recent question was a sci-fi idea of what if it were the Lennon situation and there were no churches, no religion, etc. There is no resentment because they never existed at all. So. What happens when there is an event such as the loss of a child. These are good people; their grief is enormous and real; their loss can never be replaced. What do you tell them.
The responses were interesting and I'm not going to repeat them but it would probably be better to skip straight to the punchline before anyone jumps out of a chair, all wild-eyed and ready to burn this house down because of church-destroying Democrats.
The conclusion wasn't particularly surprising to me and it was that there really isn't much one can offer that would be any better than what happens right now. There are lots of things people see religion doing wrong but that was something people agreed it does right. Moreover, there wasn't any thought that anything else would do it better.
Of course God has a sense of humor. Who do you think invented laughter.
Facebook, surprisingly enough, has been uncharacteristically responsive lately to questions that directly challenge various positions but do it in a non-combative way. That invites discussion from both poles and those have been interesting. Sometimes there is no possibility of agreement but it's more remarkable that there is more agreement than may otherwise be apparent.
The article on where Democrats stand was an attempt to do that same thing. The objective was to state clearly what those principles have been as Republicans, as opposed to Teapugs, know their own principles and will not budge from them. Teapugs don't often know the principles or the history but actual Republicans typically are more literate and know both. That's where discussion can get interesting.
A recent question was a sci-fi idea of what if it were the Lennon situation and there were no churches, no religion, etc. There is no resentment because they never existed at all. So. What happens when there is an event such as the loss of a child. These are good people; their grief is enormous and real; their loss can never be replaced. What do you tell them.
The responses were interesting and I'm not going to repeat them but it would probably be better to skip straight to the punchline before anyone jumps out of a chair, all wild-eyed and ready to burn this house down because of church-destroying Democrats.
The conclusion wasn't particularly surprising to me and it was that there really isn't much one can offer that would be any better than what happens right now. There are lots of things people see religion doing wrong but that was something people agreed it does right. Moreover, there wasn't any thought that anything else would do it better.
Of course God has a sense of humor. Who do you think invented laughter.
No comments:
Post a Comment