> From: "david buchanan" <dmbuchanan@hotm...>
> To: <moq_focus@moqt...>
> Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2006 9:43 PM
> Subject: Re: [MF] MOQ: valuable or not?
> OK. As I explained, you're catching some of Sam's heat because I see
> you making similar moves. And as I tried to explain, I think these
> moves are related to a larger problem, which is where the comments
> about the Harris book come in. So where do I get the idea that you're
> using some of these evasive moves? Beyond an apparent reluctance to
> provide answers to my questions, (I still don't know what you or Sam
> mean by "faith", for example) there are comments like this...
Let me see if I understand you. You're saying you're inflamed because
I failed to answer your question? And you expect me to explain, to your
satisfaction, what I mean by faith?
The last time I offered an explanation on this subject it was in my 22
January post that started the thread "faith, hope and love." I provided
excerpts from James Fowler's landmark publication, Stages of Faith.
You responded that same day with an absolutely outrageous remark.
"I realize this stuff means something to you, Kevin, and you're just
trying to spread the joy. But as I understand it, "faith" is not a good
thing. At least not Fowlers quasi-fascist, spiritually retarded version of
> Kevin said:
> The caveat is that, as a man who maintains a love relationship with
> Jesus, I may use language that would tend to inflame other people's
> sensibilities. If this becomes a problem then I'll have to bow out of the
> dmb says:
> I suppose this caveat can be read to mean that you're genuinely
> concerned that your Christian mode of expression will upset people too
> much and that you'd be bowing out for the sake of kindness. But that's
> kinda hard to believe. I mean, I've never noticed any kind of problem
> along those lines around here. If you recall the two examples of Sam
> heading for the exit soon after being challenged, you'll see why your
> caveat about loving Jesus and bowing out might bother me. One could
> read your comments to mean, "I'm a christian so I'm gonna talk like a
> Christian and if anybody makes a fuss about that, I'm leaving." It could
> be seen as an announcement that you're simply not going to respond
> to those who might have a problem with what you're saying or how
> you're saying it. It says, "Don't you dare." And that's the kind of
> emotional blackmail Harris was talking about, the kind that is used to
> protect beliefs from scrutiny. It puts conditions on the way the
> conversation is going to be conducted and then backs it up with a
> small threat. It says, "Don't challenge me on this or I'm leaving". Its
> emotionally manipulative to suggest in advance that certain kinds of
> responses will cause you to leave. It mutes the conversation to the
> extent that people feel obliged to comply. To the extent that this fixes
> the game in your favor and sets certain self-serviing parameters, I think
> its intellectually dishonest.
You're quoting something I posted a week ago, 18 February to be
And so you doubt my sincerity and you count that as evidence of
intellectually dishonesty on my part.