X-VMS-To: IN%"WORDS-L@uga.cc.uga.edu"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.words-l
Date:         Fri, 25 Dec 1992 00:50:25 -0800
From:         Peter Montgomery <MONTGOMERY@CAMINS.CAMOSUN.BC.CA>
Subject:      Re: Deep beliefs
Comments: To: WORDS-L@uga.cc.uga.edu

> From: torkel@SICS.SE

>I'm afraid I quite misinterpreted your reply to my earlier remarks:

Thank you for saying that. I was getting quite frustrated
at not being able to give you an answer that satisfied.

> These remarks you found unobjectionable. Apparently what you meant was that
> it is ok to declare other people's deeply held beliefs false, revolting, and
> beneath contempt, provided this is done in a gentle, sharing, understanding
> way that does not offend.

That's roughly what it comes down to, and in fact it goes on on a daily
basis at the United Nations. There is a protocol of politeness even be-
tween the most desperate of opponents

>   With this point clarified at last, I don't see that your remarks
> have much to do with your indignation at the use of "Jesus" as an
> expletive.

They only do if there is a protocol of behaviour for Words-L.
As I have been informed, no such formal protocol exists.
I think that is a pity, but if behaviour is determined somewhat
on the Lord of the Flies model, then my objections are futile.
I wonder though, that an institution would support such a public
indulgence in anarchy.

> to offend these people's sensibilities? To these questions your comments
> about "mocking humanness" etc are relevant,

If they're relevant, why not support the idea of respecting things
 of important value to people?

>   Let's see, now,...wasn't it characteristic of deep beliefs,
> according to your earlier explanation, that people are prepared to die
> for them? Are you suggesting that the SS people were not fanatics, or
> that they did not have deeply held beliefs? Are you suggesting that
> Muslims on suicide missions are not fanatics, or that they are not moved
> by deeply held beliefs?

FANATIC, in fact, is not a term I introduced into the conversation.
It has both informal and formal usages that could cause much confusion.
Perhaps you should define what you meant by it in your first usage.
You might wish to make a careful distinction between FANATIC and
ZEALOT as well.

Suffice it to say, that the kind of person with deeply held beliefs that
I have in mind would be a Gandhi, a Mother Theresa, a Martin Luther King,
an Albert Schweitzer, maybe even a Gorbachev whom I find a most remark-
able person. If you see such people as fanatics, well that is your choice.
People with deep commitments to the negative side of things also do
exist, I'm sure. Many of their followers (as with the followers of the
good guys above) may well be what I think you mean by fanatics. It's
probably wise to accord to the follower, the respect owing to the
teacher, if for no other reason than that the teacher may well come
after you. But really, it's entirely up to you.


> cause or belief is a fine thing if one that I find profoundly silly as
> well as pretty revolting. However, I must confess that I have no clear
> idea at the moment how to convey this to you in a caring, sharing,
> non-offensive way.

I have no problem at all with your having such a finding, just so long
as you don't expect me to see it that way as well. Polite respect does
not, btw, need to involve caring and sharing. That's an element you may
have read into my remarks. Nonetheless, seeing that I endured your mis-
interpretation to the end in order to clarify things, it might be appro-
priate for you to indulge me, and answer MY question:

>>..., could it be that you are saying you sometimes disrespect beliefs for
>>which you have great respect? If the latter, I should be quite grateful
>>for an example.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU