Another Review of the Women's Rally

["Doug Jones" <credenda@moscow.com>]

Bob Hoffman wrote:


> Ah, Doug, how observant of you.  When attending functions of "modernists,"
> progressives, or other sundry sinners, you observe that they are either
> tired and cliched, or internally illogical and contradictory.  And the
> adherents are so smug in their self-conviction.

Keep in mind that I don't do this in a "checkers condemns backgammon"
strategy. My observations are based on these visions living up to their own
standards, not mine.

>Indeed, nothing is more
> self-affirming than being in the presence of a significant number of
> like-minded individuals, gathered in common purpose--certainly you
> recognize this in your own congregation.  What cliches, what repetition,
> what poverty of philosophy would the nonbeliever point out in your flock?
>

Well, sure, quite right. But I'm willing to try to weed that out. Are you?
Is the progressive tradition ever going to play something other than
"Something's Happening Here" and reuse Nazi cliches? Credenda/Agenda is much
harder on our own traditions than on yours. Criticism starts at home.

> Of course you would not appeal to one ideal as the final rationalization
> for every thought you hold, every act you perform, right?  Or have these
> progressives found religion, and are you to congratulate them for
> that?

Actually, Christianity is much richer and more interesting than one abstract
ideal. But I'm even more pleased to hear you think that this Equality
mighta, sorta, couldbe a religious expression. That would be a wonderful
step forward in the discussion, but I don't think your colaborers will want
you to go down that path.


>And why your own failure of logic and rationality, observing that
> the greatest mantra of the event was Equality, and yet not understanding
> the reason the crowd accepted the legal alternative proposed by Peg
> Hamlett--because it would apply EQUALLY to both genders, unlike the
current
> ordinance?

But my point gladly grants this; my criticism focused on it being an
*imposition* of morality, just one you like. So if we agree, can we drop all
the progressive objections against "imposing morality"? I'm game.


>
> We should not be surprised that some voyeurs attended the rally, looking
to
> see some titty, only to be presented by the male posterior of the
> ordinance's most recent violator.  Surely you're not trying to make a
point
> with this?  If atheists were to attend one of your services on the premise
> of smugly viewing idolatry, would that negate the sincerity of purpose
> among the worshipers?  Upon the passing of the collection plate, would
they
> raise comparisons to the most recent televangelist caught with his
> money-stuffed pants around his ankles in the company of a prostitute?

You've missed the comparison. I didn't make the point that the voyeurs
diminished anyone's sincerity. I made the point that the goals of
progressives, Jerry Springer culture, and corrupt televangelists all
coalesce. That should bother you if you want to inspire and attract the
local community.

Doug Jones