From: Arlo J. Bensinger (ajb102@psu.edu)
Date: Sat Sep 24 2005 - 17:25:55 BST
Erin,
[You wrote]
Yes I read what you write...I just find when you go on your rant that you get a
little extremist. DO YOU READ WHAT I WRITE (see caps doesn't really help
understanding anothers position)
[Arlo]
I try to make emphatic points using rhetorical markers. But, yes, I do think the
proper use of capitalization can help mark precise points of emphasis in a
dialogic flow. Something you can't do if capitalize an entire sentence.
[you wrote]
I noticed you switched to Lexus when I wrote about Buicks. I think quite a few
low income people drive Buicks which is why it struck me as odd as why you
picked that brand.
[Arlo]
I picked it because it is what Platt said he drives. Plain and simple. Since
Platt's hypocritical stance in calling for Judeo-Christian morals is
specifically what I was spotlighting, it made sense to interject that into the
criticism. To make the general specific.
But you are correct, many low-income people do drive Buicks (and Harleys, for
that matter). Lexuses, on the other hand, are driven exclusively by upper to
high income people. So, my rhetorical use of Lexus served this goal, and my
rhetorical use of Buick served its.
[you wrote]
You say an old van driving by hitchikers would bother you but my point was
instead of focusing on the behavior that bothers you (i.e. "driving by those in
need") you draw attention to the kind of car the person was
driving...unneccessary IMHO.
[Arlo]
First, I have to make something clear. When I said "drive by the poor" I wasn't
simply talking about New Orleans evacuations. I was talking about the day-in,
day-out passing by of the poor by people with material means (how's that?) who
call themselves "christians".
This to me is why the added emphasis. It is hypocrisy for anyone to purport
adhering to christian faith to pass by those suffering and do nothing. It is a
hypocrisy that increases when the passerby also has significant material means,
and could render greater assistance. And, it increases even more when these
people become "vocal" about their "christian morality".
[Erin]
I guess I just don't come across a lot of people who talk about DISDAIN for the
poor ....maybe DISDAIN for poverty.
[Arlo]
Really? How about Platt? To him, the poor are suffering because they are lazy,
slothful or otherwise of no value. If that isn't disdain, I'm not sure what is.
And let's remember that the poor are not simply those on welfare, or
unemployment. The vast majority of poor are working poor, who work slave hours
for slave wages. In the eyes of Platt, they are in this position because that's
all they are good for. It certainly is not any moral obligation of his to worry
about whether or not a poor family has heating for the winter, or food for the
week, or medicine for their sick children. Tell me, do you think that jibes
with "christian morality"?
[I said previously]
You say Let me spell it out: Material acquisition, including the amasssing of
wealth, is the antithesis of "christian morality" which can be summed up by
"feed the poor, heal the sick, and shelter the homeless".
[you wrote]
Let me spell it out. There are wealthy people who do a lot for the poor.
[Arlo]
What does this have to do with "wealth" being the antithesis of "christian
morality"? Jesus was very clear in his condemnation of material acquisition.
[you wrote]
They are not IGNORING the needs of the poor and think you are a bit full of
yourself for condemning them based amassing wealth.
[Arlo]
Okay. I am condemning the hypocrisy, Erin. Not the wealth. Although I feel our
culture suffers from a malady of Money Worship, I am obviously not Amish or
anti-material. There certainly are Good people with substantial material
wealth.
[Erin]
Exactly what income level is the cutoff that you think somebody can be a
Christian and not be hypocritical?
[Arlo]
$17,231 a year.
[Erin]
As for the stopping for hitchhikers I think you again are being overly
judgemental. It may have nothing do with DISDAIN for hitchikers or those in
need but yes it does have to do with saving your own skin. You can't care for
the poor and want to save your own skin?
[Arlo]
This is all well and good, Erin. But tell me you think it jibes with being a
"good christian" according to the teachings of Jesus. Do you think those who
profess to believing in the message of this person would be supported by this
person in their actions? This is my point. The hypocrisy.
[Erin]
I don't blame anyone for not stopping in such a scary situation and sure is hell
not going to look to see what kind of car they were driving to shed any light
on the situation of why they didn't stop.
[Arlo]
We all hear a lot about the compassion of Buddhists. If Katmandu was hit by a
flood, and the Buddhists fled the city and ignored the poor and left them to
die, wouldn't you be all like "hmmm... they certainly don't seem to grasp what
their religion teaches, do they?" or "hmmm... when push comes to shove, how
quickly they ignore their own spiritual teachings and think only about
themselves?".
Isn't religion supposed to provide a sense of duty greater than "saving one's
own skin"?
Arlo
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Sep 24 2005 - 18:23:40 BST