Recommend
1 
 Thumb up
 Hide
15 Posts

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Everything Else » Religion, Sex, and Politics

Subject: How to be Consistantly Inconsistant. [R] rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Josh
United States
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
So, I didn't respond directly to a post I read in the BSA thread because this seemed like a derail and a more general question, but, how do 'faith based' organizations that seek to integrate into a modern society catch a break? It was posited that the inconsistency of policing was a problem, suggesting that in order to have any code of conduct one must adopt the entirety of cannon, and apparently the very specific cannon that someone applying scrutiny wishes you to in order to be consistent. Taking the fact that for any Religion or even non-religious morality/ethics doctrine there are lots of interpretations and variables, and adding to the fact that any established set of rules and guidelines must integrate new concepts as time progresses or become obsolete, how does this work?

If you stick to the specific cannon and never examine or alter it, you are considered backwards, a Luddite, intolerant, and ridiculed. If you seek to shift your source material into a role of informing rather than dictating and try to apply it to modern settings in an ongoing process of growth you are now considered inconsistent, not a 'true believer', and insincere by the selfsame group of people. It's going to be easy to take the piss at Christianity here, but you can adapt this to any ethical structure and apply the same standards. You could even apply it to developing theories in science and the flaws in such polar judgements would be seen.

If you want people to change and grow you can't call them inconsistent as soon as they take their first step in any direction form the platform they've trapped themselves on their whole lives.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rich Shipley
United States
Baltimore
Maryland
flag msg tools
badge
the liberal unsavory type
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
There's nothing wrong with faith based organizations, but this limits their audience. If an organization wants to have (or keep) a more universal appeal it has to become more accepting of everyone in a pluralistic society.

For the BSA, they have adapted many times over the years and are continuing to do so. They have to if they want to remain relevant to the country.
6 
 Thumb up
0.01
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Born To Lose, Live To Win
United States
South Euclid
Ohio
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Shadrach wrote:

If you want people to change and grow you can't call them inconsistent as soon as they take their first step in any direction form the platform they've trapped themselves on their whole lives.


Why not? Once the gates are open to understanding why can't you help them by pointing out "Now that you see this particular thing this way, see how this other thing is related?" Sure, you should be more constructive than condemning about it, but it's hard to have patience when others rights/feelings/identity is being affected.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rich Shipley
United States
Baltimore
Maryland
flag msg tools
badge
the liberal unsavory type
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
TheChin! wrote:
Shadrach wrote:

If you want people to change and grow you can't call them inconsistent as soon as they take their first step in any direction form the platform they've trapped themselves on their whole lives.


Why not? Once the gates are open to understanding why can't you help them by pointing out "Now that you see this particular thing this way, see how this other thing is related?" Sure, you should be more constructive than condemning about it, but it's hard to have patience when others rights/feelings/identity is being affected.


It makes sense keep up the pressure for further change. It also makes sense to reward any change in your direction, because the other side certainly won't. And there's always the chance that they will turn back if they don't see a benefit.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Germany
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmb
Religions are part of culture and therefore change along with culture. The '68 generation of Catholic theology students, for example, went on to become some of the most liberal clergymen in the history of the church.

I don't think I ever criticised any religious institution for modernising itself. But with any progress you'll also get some reactionaries; that's just the ordeal of change.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Christopher Yaure
United States
Plymouth Meeting
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
[q="Simon Mueller"]

I don't think I ever criticised any religious institution for modernising itself. q]

Really? This type of criticism is common. As an easy example, after the Second Vatican Council approved of the use of vernacular languages for celebrating mass, there were many Catholics who criticized the Church.

Correction

I TOTALLY misread Simon's comment. I apologize for implying (stating?) YOU engaged in that type of criticism.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Belgium
flag msg tools
Meaningless means there's a strong limit to how much I can mess up!
badge
This overtext is not in use.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Shadrach wrote:
If you stick to the specific cannon and never examine or alter it, you are considered backwards, a Luddite, intolerant, and ridiculed. If you seek to shift your source material into a role of informing rather than dictating and try to apply it to modern settings in an ongoing process of growth you are now considered inconsistent, not a 'true believer', and insincere by the selfsame group of people.


Rather, quite different groups of people.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Josh
United States
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Dolphinandrew wrote:
Shadrach wrote:
If you stick to the specific cannon and never examine or alter it, you are considered backwards, a Luddite, intolerant, and ridiculed. If you seek to shift your source material into a role of informing rather than dictating and try to apply it to modern settings in an ongoing process of growth you are now considered inconsistent, not a 'true believer', and insincere by the selfsame group of people.


Rather, quite different groups of people.


Actually the same group of people too.

Your unwillingness to change means you are backwards, but any willingness to change just shows your beliefs weren't really beliefs to begin with making your entire belief system invalid. That logic is what I am pointing out.
2 
 Thumb up
1.00
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Lynette
United States
Richland
Washington
flag msg tools
Yep, I am a girl Scientist. Come for the breasts; Stay for the brains!
badge
For as long as I shall live I will testify to love; I'll be a witness in the silences when words are not enough.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Dolphinandrew wrote:
Shadrach wrote:
If you stick to the specific cannon and never examine or alter it, you are considered backwards, a Luddite, intolerant, and ridiculed. If you seek to shift your source material into a role of informing rather than dictating and try to apply it to modern settings in an ongoing process of growth you are now considered inconsistent, not a 'true believer', and insincere by the selfsame group of people.


Rather, quite different groups of people.


No he is right... it is often the SAME group of people.

Go read some of the really long threads the past few months.

Like in the Hobby Lobby threads... where the "Sincerity" and "Christianity" of the owners have been called into question several times because they aren't hardline to the max. It is almost like it is worse in some of the posters minds that they are ok with 16 out of the 20 birth-control options than being from the hardline all birth control is wrong camp.

And in the "gay wedding cake" threads, there was a similar vibe.... there were a couple of comments that made it seem like it was somehow even worse to treat homosexuals as people in all other ways but still not want to bake them a cake than it was to just flat out be out there protesting against them.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Josh
United States
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I do want to say that, for me, there is a big difference between a private club slowly adjusting it's practices to reflect changes in society while trying to cling to their faith-based origins and a person or persons using their faith as an excuse in order to circumvent the normal laws of the state.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Belgium
flag msg tools
Meaningless means there's a strong limit to how much I can mess up!
badge
This overtext is not in use.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Shadrach wrote:
Dolphinandrew wrote:
Shadrach wrote:
If you stick to the specific cannon and never examine or alter it, you are considered backwards, a Luddite, intolerant, and ridiculed. If you seek to shift your source material into a role of informing rather than dictating and try to apply it to modern settings in an ongoing process of growth you are now considered inconsistent, not a 'true believer', and insincere by the selfsame group of people.


Rather, quite different groups of people.


Actually the same group of people too.

Your unwillingness to change means you are backwards, but any willingness to change just shows your beliefs weren't really beliefs to begin with making your entire belief system invalid. That logic is what I am pointing out.


I disagree. You certainly get these two groups of people. What you do also get is people calling hypocrisy at those who act, for example, 'based on the Bible', but ignore other parts of it. This isn't a call for them to de-modernise.

The hobby lobby stuff and the gay wedding cakes have plenty of this. But you don't see many people criticizing these people for being anti-homosexual while at the same time saying those people claiming to be Christians but happily baking cakes for gay people are not true believers.

It is rather about the consistency of those refusing to, say, bake the cake. It's not that people think they should, for example, refuse to bake a cake for people getting remarried. It's that they are defending their actions using reasons that would also apply in that case. The argument is not 'you should therefore not bake cakes for people getting married', but rather 'your actions show that your given reasons for doing that are not the real reason you are doing that'.

It's not, 'if you want to do that, you should be a even more hardcore Christian'. It's 'if you were really such a hardcore Christian, you would be doing these other things, but you aren't doing them, so you aren't so hardcore'.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Meerkat wrote:
Dolphinandrew wrote:
Shadrach wrote:
If you stick to the specific cannon and never examine or alter it, you are considered backwards, a Luddite, intolerant, and ridiculed. If you seek to shift your source material into a role of informing rather than dictating and try to apply it to modern settings in an ongoing process of growth you are now considered inconsistent, not a 'true believer', and insincere by the selfsame group of people.


Rather, quite different groups of people.


No he is right... it is often the SAME group of people.

Go read some of the really long threads the past few months.

Like in the Hobby Lobby threads... where the "Sincerity" and "Christianity" of the owners have been called into question several times because they aren't hardline to the max. It is almost like it is worse in some of the posters minds that they are ok with 16 out of the 20 birth-control options than being from the hardline all birth control is wrong camp.

And in the "gay wedding cake" threads, there was a similar vibe.... there were a couple of comments that made it seem like it was somehow even worse to treat homosexuals as people in all other ways but still not want to bake them a cake than it was to just flat out be out there protesting against them.
In the case of insurance the point was made they had no issue with providing it until it was law.

In the case of bakers the point was made that it is no different from protesting agasint gay marriage, not that it is worse.

The point being made (also) is that if your defense is "the bible" that defense is rather undermined if you do not apply that same standards in all situation and circumstances of your life.

You cannot say you hate intolerance, and hate the Dutch.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Shadrach wrote:
So, I didn't respond directly to a post I read in the BSA thread because this seemed like a derail and a more general question, but, how do 'faith based' organizations that seek to integrate into a modern society catch a break? It was posited that the inconsistency of policing was a problem, suggesting that in order to have any code of conduct one must adopt the entirety of cannon, and apparently the very specific cannon that someone applying scrutiny wishes you to in order to be consistent. Taking the fact that for any Religion or even non-religious morality/ethics doctrine there are lots of interpretations and variables, and adding to the fact that any established set of rules and guidelines must integrate new concepts as time progresses or become obsolete, how does this work?

If you stick to the specific cannon and never examine or alter it, you are considered backwards, a Luddite, intolerant, and ridiculed. If you seek to shift your source material into a role of informing rather than dictating and try to apply it to modern settings in an ongoing process of growth you are now considered inconsistent, not a 'true believer', and insincere by the selfsame group of people. It's going to be easy to take the piss at Christianity here, but you can adapt this to any ethical structure and apply the same standards. You could even apply it to developing theories in science and the flaws in such polar judgements would be seen.

If you want people to change and grow you can't call them inconsistent as soon as they take their first step in any direction form the platform they've trapped themselves on their whole lives.
Odd, as whenever people do try to inform Christians that "hey the bible does not say that" and then what happens is exactly what you describe.

Maybe Christian should try to act as they preach and not seek to call people inconsistent or Wrongdictory?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Josh
United States
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Dolphinandrew wrote:

I disagree. You certainly get these two groups of people. What you do also get is people calling hypocrisy at those who act, for example, 'based on the Bible', but ignore other parts of it. This isn't a call for them to de-modernise.

The hobby lobby stuff and the gay wedding cakes have plenty of this. But you don't see many people criticizing these people for being anti-homosexual while at the same time saying those people claiming to be Christians but happily baking cakes for gay people are not true believers.

It is rather about the consistency of those refusing to, say, bake the cake. It's not that people think they should, for example, refuse to bake a cake for people getting remarried. It's that they are defending their actions using reasons that would also apply in that case. The argument is not 'you should therefore not bake cakes for people getting married', but rather 'your actions show that your given reasons for doing that are not the real reason you are doing that'.

It's not, 'if you want to do that, you should be a even more hardcore Christian'. It's 'if you were really such a hardcore Christian, you would be doing these other things, but you aren't doing them, so you aren't so hardcore'.


You have completely misread what I wrote and are arguing points I'm not making at all. In fact you're agreeing with me accidentally while disagreeing with what I didn't say. Is this some new form of rhetorical trick? o.O
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Belgium
flag msg tools
Meaningless means there's a strong limit to how much I can mess up!
badge
This overtext is not in use.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Shadrach wrote:
You have completely misread what I wrote and are arguing points I'm not making at all. In fact you're agreeing with me accidentally while disagreeing with what I didn't say. Is this some new form of rhetorical trick? o.O


I'm saying that most people who are pointing out that those, say, baking cakes for people getting remarried and not for gay people are not insisting that they adopt the entirety of a particular cannon. They are saying that those who are claiming that they think it's wrong to bake a cake for a gay couple because they accept the entirety of particular cannon are in fact not acting as if they accept the entirety of that cannon otherwise.

This would only speak against those modernising that cannon too if those modernising that cannon were holding onto a similar all or nothing view of this cannon.

It's a response to a particular justification of an action based on a specific religious belief, not a generic statement about the nature of how religious belief should be held.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.