Apology

[avevale_intelligencer]

In the last post on religion I said:

I have many religious friends and many secular friends, and as to intelligence, freedom of thought, perception, courage and honesty I find nothing to choose between them, and I will not tolerate anyone implying otherwise.

Heat and exhaustion and general frustration caused me to miswrite. I should have said that I will be very upset if anyone says or implies in the pages of my particular LiveJournal that there is any causal connection between one group of people's hypothetical superiority or inferiority to another in terms of intelligence, freedom of thought, perception, courage or honesty, and their particular philosophical stance vis-a-vis the universe.

Obviously I neither have nor want to have any influence over what you write elsewhere, or any right of censorship over what anyone says or thinks about anyone else, and you are all free to badmouth each other absolutely any way you want, nor do you need me to tell you that.

I apologise for giving offence, and hope this retraction will go some way to atonement.

Crawling back under my rock now.

Comments

[erisiansaint]

I missed the initial post. But I read that quote and then I read the explanation. And it seemed to me that what you were saying is that your religious friends are as intelligent, as free of thought, and as perceptive, courageous and honest as your secular friends.

That seems to me to be a very good way of looking at things. I'm not sure why that's a problem.

Perhaps I misread.

[keristor.livejournal.com]

"Free of thought" does describe my mental state sometimes *g*. (I take it you mean free as in freedom, not as in free lunch.)

I agree with you, that's how I read the original as well. I think that he may be referring to his "I will not tolerate" which, if read literally, might imply that he wouldn't tolerate any criticism of his friends anywhere (hence 'censorship'). In context, however, I think it was perfectly clear that he meant "in his journal" and anyone who actually took offence at it is their problem.

Zander, no apology necessary, but if you insist on making one then it is of course accepted.

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

That's exactly what I meant, and that is what I believe, but I did leave it open to misinterpretation as Keris has said.

I should also make it clear that it's entirely possible for someone to be intelligent, free of thought (in the good way), perceptive, courageous and honest, and still drive me crazy sometimes. That is almost certainly my problem, not theirs, but there are those who have sympathised with me about it and might therefore have wondered, in the circumstances, why they bothered. It is to them that I owe the apology.