Listen to this articleAs I have reported previously, one of my "favorite" anti-Christian Right sites is talk2action.org. Recently, I went to comment on their site, and was soundly rebuked for offering any counterpoint. I guess I didn’t read the Terms of Use which states that you have to "agree with their purpose" to join.
Actually, I agree with their purpose, and understand if they want to limit membership to prevent flame wars, but I had problems with their lack of accuracy. Outright lying will serve the purpose of stirring up their members, but not making good people. But now I am banned after one comment! You can see the interchange on this article. But for posterity, I have captured the interchange below. Wow, talk about being intolerant and sanctimonius – and I was gracious too ;)
Also, smearing Rick Warren as a Dominionist is also probably inaccurate. I know that you lefties are in a tizzy about the Dominionists and their influence, but putting everyone who shares some of their values in that same basket is disingenous and misleading.
You may want to check out the distinctions that are well described at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_mandate
by danielg on Fri Jun 02, 2006 at 02:44:32 PM EST
- danielg, you are a troll who clearly does not support the purposes of this site. You joined the site under false pretenses and will be banned. When you checked off the box in order to obtain the priviledge of participating, you were stating that you agreed with the site’s purpose. Clearly you do not.
Nevertheless, as site owner, I am going to make an exception and allow your comment and links to stand, in case anyone cares to read your critque and reply in this space.
But I do want to underscore that this is not a venue for debate with people who disagree with the purposes of this site. While debate and dialog is good in a democratic society, (and I enourage everyone to jump right in, the water’s fine) like-minded people also have an absolute right to gather together and to publish as we will without interference. Please respect our right to do so.
As for your disingenuous concern that we might "look bad," as we shine some light into dark places, I would urge you to reflect on your own behavior.
by Frederick Clarkson on Fri Jun 02, 2006 at 04:32:07 PM EST
[ Parent ] - I think you’re being "wildly inaccurate" to say that that is the consensus opinion on the Cadre site. Indeed, the comments there reflect a range of views.
What I did see was substantial nit-picking about facts and interpretation but little attempt to address some central and critical issues: 1. Is this game about "Christianity" or about one rather narrow (and fictionalized) theological view? 2. Is a violent game the appropriate vehicle for spreading any message about Christianity when we live in a culture that is already so saturated with violence that people (including children) have become desensitized to it? 3. Is there an implicit message that organizations such as the UN which are struggling to bring peace are the "Anti-Christ?" 4. Is this game really about spirituality of any stripe or is it a cynical marketing ploy that uses religion as a tool to make megabucks by distributing it through churches to the "Christian Market?"
As for the "Cultural Mandate" (if, indeed, this is what Warren subscribes to), I’m not convinced that, if one considers the goals, this isn’t a bit of semantic dressing up of theocracy.
If you think this site is simply a home for "lefties..in a tizzy about the Dominionists" or that we dump "everyone who shares some of their values in that same basket," I would guess that you haven’t spent much time reading here or that the discourse is broader than you are able to appreciate.
