Psycho-Babble Administration | about the operation of this site | Framed
This thread | Show all | Post follow-up | Start new thread | List of forums | Search | FAQ

Re: Lou's resply to Dr. Hsiung's reply to Lou

Posted by used2b on April 12, 2005, at 11:32:55

In reply to Lou's resply to Dr. Hsiung's reply to Lou Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on April 12, 2005, at 10:08:53

Lou,

I've not followed the details of this controversy, but from the rules as I see them represented in your post (posting what different faiths teach is allowed), this is another case where idiosyncratic rules of syntax at this site are at odds with standard syntax as would be endorsed by most experts in English language.

If the rule allows claims about "what different faiths teach" the rule anthropomorphizes faith. A faith is a concept incapable of teaching anything. Organizations articulate faith concepts. Organizations comprise people.

We can only speak accurately about what people teach. Those teachings are based on their individual beliefs. When a set of rules presumes to allow "what faiths teach" someone is neccessarily deciding whose beliefs are allowed as a "faith" and which are excluded. And even if the rule maker disallows all interpretive statements, selected citations from spiritual texts reflect the opinion of the second-hand source who selected the citation.

How many people does it take for a belief to become a faith? One? Two? Four? Fourty? Four hundred? Four thousand? Were the Davidians a faith or a sect? Are all Christians one faith or do diverse denominations reflect diverse faiths?

Courts have been somewhat successful in establishing which "organized religions" have legitimate standing in regard to matters like conscientious objection to warfare, and ordination of religious ministers for tax purposes. But their rules tread carefully around the first amendment (in the US).

Any discrimination in dialogue about "what different faiths teach" rests purely on the authority of the individual so discriminating. Rational discourse is not built around protecting what people might feel in response to discourse. It seems odd to me the administrator of a site intended to support mental health systematically prefers emotional discourse over rational discourse, because some sources say mental disorders are often rooted in cognitive misperceptions that in turn fuel emotional disorders.


Share
Tweet  

Thread

 

Post a new follow-up

Your message only Include above post


Notify the administrators

They will then review this post with the posting guidelines in mind.

To contact them about something other than this post, please use this form instead.

 

Start a new thread

 
Google
dr-bob.org www
Search options and examples
[amazon] for
in

This thread | Show all | Post follow-up | Start new thread | FAQ
Psycho-Babble Administration | Framed

poster:used2b thread:7713
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050323/msgs/483280.html