tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3627626634941391100.post1169362123889011853..comments2023-08-10T11:07:36.612+02:00Comments on Viderunt Omnes: New Zealand Anglicans: a call to consistently ethical behaviorJameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11938641996931196631noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3627626634941391100.post-47333315556380609582011-06-15T22:32:53.711+02:002011-06-15T22:32:53.711+02:00Thanks, David - I'm entirely in agreement with...Thanks, <b>David</b> - I'm entirely in agreement with you. In the Anglican Communion, we've been "pushing the envelope" with the pejorative term "Fundamentalism" - so with figures like John Shelby Spong or Mr. Cardy, it basically means: "Trinitarian Christian" - i.e., any Christian who won't deny the Living and Risen Christ.<br /><br />In the Communion, shouting "Fundamentalist!" these days is a lot like shouting "Witch!" It means ... someone is just utterly horrid, dangerous, and to be avoided ... but <i>for what reason exactly</i> that's kinda hard to say you see because "Fundamentalism" is a complex phenomenon that doesn't specifically point to any one characteristic etc. etc. ... (and we're off to the races, anyone I don't like possibly being a candidate for being a "fundamentalist").<br /><br /><b>Peter</b> - I know the other commenters on this thread, but I don't think I know you. Might you be so kind as to identify yourself - a blog, a last name, a location, something like that?Jameshttp://VideruntOmnes.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3627626634941391100.post-67440835347416454302011-06-15T15:47:04.388+02:002011-06-15T15:47:04.388+02:00James, et al, I think the simple math on "hat...James, et al, I think the simple math on "hate speech" is that it is pejorative and creates a bigoted impression of the opposing person, race or point-of-view. In this case, a group of people who believe in a Christian doctrine as old as the creeds of the church are dubbed, as a group, into a negative stereotype. That's bigotry and that's pretty much exactly what "hate speech" (as much as I hate that term for it's cliched uselessness) is about.David Vhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15852039095639414862noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3627626634941391100.post-47397594490902951162011-06-14T16:24:14.694+02:002011-06-14T16:24:14.694+02:00I've had a private exchange about this issue w...I've had a private exchange about this issue with a friend in New Zealand, who notes:<br /><br />In New Zealand, one wouldn't typically associate this kind of language with "hate speech."<br /><br />There's much to be said regarding this remark. I personally find the word <i>hate speech</i> quite ugly. I believe it grew out of darker moments of American rhetorical clashes - it is certainly a rather "shrill" type of word. Its lack of preciseness has populist overtones.<br /><br />However, it's become something of a staple term for progressives. I don't want to go into too much detail nor dig up other controversies - but let's consider for example the fact that the Southern Poverty Law Center considers the American Family Association to be a "hate group" and in its defense of this appellation, cited the fact that the AFA warned its readership that the repeal of DADT would lead to straight people sharing showers with gay people; which, in fact, <i>was the truth</i>.<br /><br />I would rather that the term "hate speech" is avoided entirely, with more nuanced language applied to cases of rhetorical misconduct - <i>not</i> that we must "grow lax" - but the term "hate speech" is frequently used to <i>demonize</i> groups.<br /><br />My point here is that what's good for the goose, is good for the gander. If we are saying that a particular group of Christians needs to be labeled with the pejorative term "Fundamentalist" <i>and</i> alleging that such persons believe in divine sperm - <i>if</i> we accept the term "hate speech" (Cardy himself has used it, though in a more nuanced context than this one), then it most certainly applies here.<br /><br />It could be argued that "everyone knows this isn't true." I think this is far from true - Cardy's words about "divine sperm" rang out to the very corners of the earth, with hundreds of news sources and many more blogs picking up on them. The world audience isn't theologically well-educated. And from the general content of what I've read at St. Matt's website, assessing its level of discourse and engagement of thought ... I'd be inclined to think that the general educational level in theology at St. Matt's is also quite low (though there are almost certainly individuals in the congregation who wouldn't fit in this generalization).Jameshttp://VideruntOmnes.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3627626634941391100.post-51668522588165431652011-06-14T13:34:16.618+02:002011-06-14T13:34:16.618+02:00Peter,
Thanks especially for your remark concerni...Peter,<br /><br />Thanks especially for your remark concerning Mr. Cardy's title. I am wondering now why I would have supposed he were a canon.<br /><br />Peter, you are right that the things that you mention do not themselves constitute hate speech; except for the last one.<br /><br />Yes, it is hate speech when Mr. Cardy falsely accuses some group of Christians of believing in divine sperm. The world reacted to the notion of "divine sperm" with disgust; and those who did not know better, would very much tend to view the group he so villifies as irrational, disgusting, or insane.<br /><br />Hate speech does not require that one explicitly admonish one's listener to hate a group of people.<br /><br />It is enough to falsely portray that group of people as disgustingly irrational, and in doing so, inspire strong feelings of aversion toward the target group.Jameshttp://VideruntOmnes.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3627626634941391100.post-85506916487017996212011-06-14T05:30:32.100+02:002011-06-14T05:30:32.100+02:00Peace to you comrade,
I am not sure whether you a...Peace to you comrade,<br /><br />I am not sure whether you appreciate St. Matthew's for what it is. To be mildly generous, you seem to have made errors your friends. I do not believe that Glynn is a Canon of the Cathedral. He has been an Archdeacon and Vicar, so styled the Venerable or the Reverend; but, he is not a Canon. Even if he were, he would then be styled the Reverend/Venerable Canon.<br /><br />From this simple error you seem to leap to many others. Unless hate speech is reduced to the trivial understanding of speech we disagree with I fail to appreciate how pointing out that "to make the news" as you cite, "it seems a priest just needs to question the literalness of a virgin giving birth," qualifies as hate speech. That Glynn proceeds to note how Progressive Christianity differs from Fundamentalism also does not qualify as hate speech. Even had he set about stating that Church X believes Y, which he didn't, it was hardly hate speech. At least it was no more hate speech than MLK's comments in his "I have a dream" speech were hate speech when he notes Alabama's tendency for vicious racists.<br />Labels are problematic, I accept that - progressive is just as problematic as fundamentalist.<br /><br />Loving others as God loves us, and calling the Church to do the same is hardly hateful either. That is unless I am the one who has indulged in the erroneous.<br /><br />May we all play lovingly.Peternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3627626634941391100.post-63167885140017704202011-06-12T21:58:16.214+02:002011-06-12T21:58:16.214+02:00Thanks for your comment, Mr. Vanderveen. You'...Thanks for your comment, Mr. Vanderveen. You're right about "Fundamentalism" - it is sort of <i>odd</i> that we still cling to this word that's more than a century old ... a conflict which, interestingly enough, began when two men who didn't believe in the virgin birth were ordained to serve as clergy in a Presbyterian church. One can't help but think ... if that church had simply waited, and allowed the debate to percolate without actually taking on the clergy ... we might have ended up avoiding the horrible polarization we now have between "liberal" and "conservative" congregations, with more congregations being a healthy mix of both.<br /><br />Alas, that didn't happen, and we have a lot of rather fruitless bickering instead.Jameshttp://VideruntOmnes.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3627626634941391100.post-90185616045246270372011-06-12T16:53:32.613+02:002011-06-12T16:53:32.613+02:00FYI, this is the wiki link: http://en.wikipedia.or...FYI, this is the wiki link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FundamentalismDavid Vhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15852039095639414862noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3627626634941391100.post-79052425758697144462011-06-12T16:52:41.789+02:002011-06-12T16:52:41.789+02:00Good commentary, James--bigotry is bigotry regardl...Good commentary, James--bigotry is bigotry regardless of what side of an issue someone is on.<br /><br />Regarding "Fundamentalism" I have always had a much clearer view of both its origins and meaning and believe that Wikipedia is correct in its history on this one, focusing on the Stewart brothers, particularly Lyman, as the founders of the movement.<br /><br />It seems absurd to focus on the virgin birth as a unique idea to fundamentalism--it a key component of the early church creeds (Old Roman, Apostolic and Nicene) and would seem to be a cornerstone of the claim of Christ to be the son of God. It's unclear to me why that would be harder to believe than that Christ rose from the dead.David Vhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15852039095639414862noreply@blogger.com