![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
From time to time, I may post here about how much I dislike people who push into queues. I do. I think they are rude and overbearing. I wish they would not do it. And it may be true that some of these pushers-in prefer coffee to tea, a preference I do not share, but to which I have no objection.
But suppose I did. And suppose I posted about how stupid those people were to choose the bitter blackness of coffee over the smooth mellowness of tea, and when someone queried my choice of words, I shifted my ground immediately and started accusing all coffee-drinkers of queue-jumping?
Thus, from time to time, I may post about how much I dislike greedy, ambitious, dishonest politicians, heads of large corporations, criminals and especially murderers of all kinds, and all people who wield excessive power and who use it for evil. And it may be true--indeed, it is true--that some of those people and corporations claim to be religious, a worldview I do not share, but to which I have no objection.
But even if I had as rooted an objection to religion on rational grounds as some of my friends, I would consider it unacceptable behaviour on my own part to respond to a query on that subject by shifting my ground and accusing all religious people of complicity in the immoral acts of politicians, merchants, monarchs and warmongers. It seems to me to be a matter of courtesy to answer the question that is asked, or to admit that no answer presents itself if such be the case.
NOTE. --I am not comparing religious view to choice of beverage, or queue-jumping to murder, or any such thing. The only relevant comparison in the analogy is that the two things are in each case completely unrelated, and in fact occur independently of each other. And the reason why I am writing this when I should be packing is to point out, YET AGAIN, that trying, by repeatedly derailing the discussion, to hijack the moral indignation which you and I both rightly feel about thing A and fasten it to thing B, to which you object on totally different grounds and I do not...
...as in
You; "The Bible is fiction."
Me: "Not entirely, surely."
You: "How dare you defend the massacre of all those innocent people in the Holy Land! MONSTER!!!"
(I simplify to save space, but it happened twice yesterday)
...is lazy, and less than honest, and since I can see perfectly well what is happening, does not exactly incline me to change my mind about thing B. I have more than enough real stuff to feel guilty about, and I'm learning to recognise the fake stuff when it's fired at me.
Just so you know. I don't want to change your mind. I just wish, if you are one of those who do this, that you would clean up your act.
But suppose I did. And suppose I posted about how stupid those people were to choose the bitter blackness of coffee over the smooth mellowness of tea, and when someone queried my choice of words, I shifted my ground immediately and started accusing all coffee-drinkers of queue-jumping?
Thus, from time to time, I may post about how much I dislike greedy, ambitious, dishonest politicians, heads of large corporations, criminals and especially murderers of all kinds, and all people who wield excessive power and who use it for evil. And it may be true--indeed, it is true--that some of those people and corporations claim to be religious, a worldview I do not share, but to which I have no objection.
But even if I had as rooted an objection to religion on rational grounds as some of my friends, I would consider it unacceptable behaviour on my own part to respond to a query on that subject by shifting my ground and accusing all religious people of complicity in the immoral acts of politicians, merchants, monarchs and warmongers. It seems to me to be a matter of courtesy to answer the question that is asked, or to admit that no answer presents itself if such be the case.
NOTE. --I am not comparing religious view to choice of beverage, or queue-jumping to murder, or any such thing. The only relevant comparison in the analogy is that the two things are in each case completely unrelated, and in fact occur independently of each other. And the reason why I am writing this when I should be packing is to point out, YET AGAIN, that trying, by repeatedly derailing the discussion, to hijack the moral indignation which you and I both rightly feel about thing A and fasten it to thing B, to which you object on totally different grounds and I do not...
...as in
You; "The Bible is fiction."
Me: "Not entirely, surely."
You: "How dare you defend the massacre of all those innocent people in the Holy Land! MONSTER!!!"
(I simplify to save space, but it happened twice yesterday)
...is lazy, and less than honest, and since I can see perfectly well what is happening, does not exactly incline me to change my mind about thing B. I have more than enough real stuff to feel guilty about, and I'm learning to recognise the fake stuff when it's fired at me.
Just so you know. I don't want to change your mind. I just wish, if you are one of those who do this, that you would clean up your act.