vision2020
Re: Debate and Dialogue
Doug J. and Doug W. et. al.
First I need to clarify I do not speak for nor am I a member of the Moscow
Civic Association. I offer the following ideas concerning the progressives
vs. the Trinitarians discussion for debate and dialog.
Doug J. and Doug W., your insistence that the Moscow Civic Association is
exclusionary in some important respects in the same manner that Christ
Church is exclusionary, therefore MCA's and the progressives's claims of
diversity and inclusiveness are disingenuous, strikes me as just a kind of
philosophical game.
The Moscow Civic Association, as far as I can tell, welcomes Christians and
atheists, Buddhists and Earth Worshipers alike. They do not insist that
members follow one and only one grand over arching spiritual metaphysic that
defines them as human beings, like Christ Church.
Before you hurtle your objections about the Enlightenment world view and
it's metaphysical assumptions being promoted by the MCA, and how this is
exclusionary towards your spiritual metaphysic, therefore, yes, they are
being exclusionary while not openly admitting it, consider the following:
diversity as a value in practice must by definition be exclusionary towards
those who try to limit diversity; and social institutions that promote
diversity, like public education, must be defended to promote the goals of
diversity.
We can discuss the metaphysic of the Enlightenment worldview that you will
insist MCA is promoting that excludes your spiritual metaphysic, but even
conceding you this point, how many metaphysical viewpoints does the MCA
allow within it's umbrella compared to Christ Church?
There is a real difference that can be measured. And cultural and lifestyle
diversity is also an issue. The extent to which the MCA is open to varying
views and lifestyles is why the MCA makes claims to be diverse and
inclusive.
When you assert the MCA is exclusionary by finding groups that contradict
their mission who they cannot include in their association without
self-destruction, you are not, it seems to me, really addressing what the
definitions of inclusiveness and diversity means in practical social and
political terms.
I will try to clarify my point with examples of who the MCA would include in
their association who would meet serious problems if they were present in
Christ Church: Representatives of nearly all major world faiths are welcome
in the MCA: Christian (Catholics, Lutherans, Methodists, etc.) Jewish,
Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Native American religions, Pagan, Goddess
worshipers, etc. including atheists and agnostics. Only one particular
brand of Christianity, among all world religions, is not excluded in Christ
Church, though I am sure people of other faiths could visit, etc. Openly
Gay men and women are welcome in the MCA. These people would I am certain
face some serious objections to their presence in Christ Church. Women with
strong feminist politics would be accepted I'm certain in the MCA. We can
guess what would happen at Christ Church. Single men and women who are
sexually active would have troubles at Christ Church, but with certain
reservations, I doubt this would be much of an issue in the MCA.
I am not trying to make diversity and inclusiveness into a competition, but
to point out that the diversity that MCA can represent within it's stated
intentions does render the criticism that the MCA is exclusionary to be
placing unreal expectations concerning what diversity and exclusivity mean
in politics.
Awaiting fruitful dialog,
Yours,
Ted
_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
Back to TOC