American evangelism??

[Dr. Shane]

I didn't take that class. You will have to use another word.

Take note I am not and have not asked for an apology. I have simply demonstated the double standard. I am not thin skinned.

[Dr. Shane]

Again let's review the double standard:

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

I make a statement without the intent to offend anyone. Someone is offended. You say I should appoligize not because what I said was offensive but simply because someone was offended. According to you, it doesn't matter if what a person says is offensive. All that matters is if someone is offended. It doesn't matter if a person intended to offend. All that matters is if someone was offended. That was your position when I was accused of offending someone.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Again, even if you bury your head in the sand and don't believe the cartoon was posted with intent to offend, according to Brother Bravus, intent doesn't matter. According to Brother Bravus, all that matters is if someone is offended. However if it is me that is offended than it doesn't matter. I think Jesus used the word hypocrit to describe folks like that.

[Neil D]

Quote:

---

I didn't take that class. You will have to use another word.

---

It's not a class, Shane...It's a condition...one that is observable by everyone who know what to look for....The word is in the dictionary.

[Bravus]

I'm hesitant to speak for others about their learning, but, briefly:

aldona has learned that she may need to provide a disclaimer or further context for something she posts - something like 'I am posting this cartoon as a critique of militarism, and I am very aware that the Australian government is at least as implicated in militarism as the American'. Of course, that kind of blunts the humor of the cartoon itself (and it *is* funny, if you understand it), but that's a price we pay. Sadly, she also seems to be learning that she needs to silence her true views here... I hope she's a slow learner of that particular lesson.

CoAspen has learned that others (in this case you) can have dramatically different interpretations of things like cartoons from hers. She has also discussed issues around democracy, evangelism and missions and expanded and clarified her understanding of distinctions among those terms.

Neil, also, has learned something about the way others interpret cartoons and other 'texts' (and not only from you - a number of people have given their varied interpretations of the original cartoon - an interesting feature of the thread).

Shane, I honestly don't think there's a double standard acting, but I'm willing to look in that mirror. Have a look at aldona's response above (remember that she was away for a day after posting the original cartoon and a lot of water passed under the bridge from other people in the mean time). What did she do? Did she tell you that you were wrong to be offended? Did she maintain that she was absolutely right? No - she carefully explained her intent, and contextualised it with her background and other things she'd posted.

She also said, explicitly:

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

This does not mean that I make such statements in an effort to offend Shane, or any other person. If I have offended anyone I apologise, as this was not my intent.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

That's a pretty dramatic contrast with your reaction to Nico. But let's say the intention is completely irrelevant, and the reaction is completely irrelevant. Let's apply what you are claiming is my standard: if anyone, ever, claims to be offended by anything anyone says, the original poster must withdraw, edit if possible and apologise. I'm not saying that's your standard, but it's what you're claiming is my standard. I believe that's a strawman version of what I really said (and one that would make any conversation at all impossible if people chose to use the tool that way), so I'll try to make it clearer:

"All of us, in a civil society, and one that claims to be trying for Christlikeness, owe it to one another to consider carefully the impact of our words (and other kinds of posts like cartoons) on other members here. If they tell us that something we've posted makes them uncomfortable, we ought to take that seriously, and be willing to take appropriate action. But the final discretion always lies with the original poster."

Let me clarify one more thing. I've never called for anyone to be banned, edited or in any way disciplined over any of this stuff. All I've ever said is that someone, through their actions, have lost some part of my respect. Maybe my respect is not all that important a currency anyway, but the way you're reacting suggests maybe it is. But this is how societies work: when someone does something that is socially awkward, they lose a little of our respect. In face to face situations, we can read those signals pretty clearly, but in this text-only world we have to be a bit more explicit.

You have a huge amount of my respect, Shane. The things you've done and worked through in the past, the great things you've done with and for God for homosexuals and now in international missions, and your passionate love for life and other opinions, your love for your wife, and just who you are - I respect and like you a great deal.

Is there possibly another double standard acting? Your response to Nico in the other matter was (my paraphrase) 'no one else can push your buttons - just suck it up and be responsible for your own feelings'. In other words, that you had the perfect right to post what you did, and she had no right to object - or at least, by objecting, she was attempting to control your behavior. In those terms, what becomes of your reaction in this thread? aldona had the perfect right to post what she did. Are you attempting to control her behavior? Do you have the right to complain, and in particular to reproach her for hurting your feelings?

I'm working on my 'double standard'. What's happening with yours?

[Taylor]

I am very democratic and love my country. No I won't tell you who I support, in the last election. However, it is a missnomer to call any soldier an "evangelist". They are doing their job, whether right or wrong, but no matter how noble it is, or heneous (depending on your world view) these American soldiers do not work for a theocracy, but a democracy. They are not there to spread the good news of salvation. They might be there to protect people, or to make it possible to accomplish something but it has nothing to do with religion. The two are seperate issues. Just because someone adds words to a picture doesn't make it true.

Whether you agree with the war or not, doesn't change that we have some very dear soldiers who honestly care about their job, their God, their families, and the children in the countries they occupy or fight in. But that doesn't make them evangelists. It might make them Christians but not evangelists.

My grandparents and parents were missionaries and they never carried a gun. : )

Just my 2 cents, perhaps off topic but never-the -less the way I see it. These comments are not to anyone in particular. Except for the last post made by Bravus .SEems as if he is trying to be a peace maker which is a good thing. If not, at least he is trying to get each one to re-evaluate where you are coming from. It would probably be best to re-read all our posts before "reacting" to what we perceive as "rediculous" or "obviously wrong". Although we might be completely right, we need to step into the other person's shoes and ask ourselves if what we have said was said in the kindest way possible, or whether it is even necesary to say. : )

[Dr. Shane]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

aldona has learned that she may need to provide a disclaimer or further context for something she posts

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

But that wasn't good enough when I offered to do it a short time ago. Hmmmmm, now why is that good enough now? Double standard maybe?

Obviously Sister Aldona did not consciencly try to offend me or other loyal Americans. However her pattern shows that subconsciously that is what it was all about. That became very evident when she admitted that she posted the cartoon and waited for someone to call her an America-hater. Now why would anyone call her that unless they were offended? She was stirring the pot - trying to pick a fight. Now I don't have a problem with that as long as there is no double standard. If you are going to let Aldona stir the pot than you need to let me stir the pot too. Understood?

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

That's a pretty dramatic contrast with your reaction to Nico.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Sister Aldona posted a politically charged cartoon and I accused her of stirring up anti-American sentiment. Sister Nico accused me of sexual harassment and compared me to a sexual predator. Do you really think the reaction to both accusations should be the same? If I knew Sister Nico personally I would probally be talking to my lawyer (to defend me not sue her).

I will say this, I think Sister Aldona's appology was not needed and she went above and beyond in so doing. I even stated that I wasn't asking for an appology before she gave one. It wasn't necesary. There is nothing wrong with stirring the pot. If people don't like it they don't have to read those "hot" threads. I was only pointing out the double standard.

I think that has been very much so demonstated in this thread and I hope we don't need to revisit this issue in the future. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

[Planey]

Quote:

---

my wife insists

---

I thought that was only in Massachusetts?

Graeme

[Bravus]

Hehe - dang, sorry. It's all that feminine sensitivity in your posts... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

OK, so that's something *else* I learned in this thread!

[Neil D]

Quote:

---

Hehe - dang, sorry. It's all that feminine sensitivity in your posts...

OK, so that's something *else* I learned in this thread!

---

Finally, something I new that I learned this week!

CoAspen, with all that femine sensitivity, you must have broken many a heart when you got married!

And she must be one neat lady for you to marry her.