JosephM
-
Posts
4,543 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Articles
Media Demo
Gallery
Downloads
Posts posted by JosephM
-
-
On 7/25/2020 at 5:45 AM, PaulS said:
Secondly, we are simply not talking only about ‘history’ here. There’s a reason communities don’t display statues of figures like Hitler, even though he was a major historic figure. Statues are displayed to ‘honour’ those represented. When you honour people who promoted, and even fought to retain the right to enslave a certain group of people, then there is more to it than just history. If it was just history, capture it in books or move memorials to museums with an explanation of all sides of the discussion.
That's right and it should be an expression of the community to determine what statues are displayed on public property and not a violent minority removing them by violence.
As far as private property, we fought for freedom of speech and i am not bothered by one who wishes to display a confederate flag or statue or picture of Hitler though i would never vote for such a thing on community property. And in that case i would respect the vote of the majority.
On 7/25/2020 at 5:45 AM, PaulS said:You ask about the lyrics - well in my mind they are an inspiration, not a dogma, about considering what harm we may be doing to others in our lives and to consider how we can cause less harm (no harm would be preferable). Would it cause you harm to remove statues honouring those who fought to keep blacks enslaved? You really couldn’t get your history any other way? And in the process, you wouldn’t feel that if removing statues helps in any way to further heal race relations, as is being asked for by many, that you may be contributing something positive to the conversation?
No harm to me either way but the point is obviously that the community at the time felt it appropriate whether to honor someone or just as a historical marker and there is a more peaceful way of changing it. Will you support violence to remove those statues over community rulings just because it in your opinion should be removed?
On 7/25/2020 at 5:45 AM, PaulS said:Of course defining harm is an opinion. Surely you understand that’s why so many hold different views about what is ‘right’ and what is ‘wrong’ in life. We all hold different views but our challenge is to get along in the best way possible. Could removing statues and naming rights of those who wanted to harm black people be a step forward for our countries - I think so.
Agreed, however it must be done peaceably not forceably.
-
Hi 4BeanMix,
Welcome to the community. You are not alone as a lot of x-Catholics have moved on to a similar more progressive stance. Many people have passed through this site on their personal journey and I'm hoping you will find discussions beneficial to your own personal journey until that time.
Joseph
-
2 hours ago, Elen1107 said:
My question is, are some of these statues really doing no harm?
I'm going to assume for right now that you are Italian or have an Italian heritage because of your name. Say there was an ideology that said that Italians should be enslaved and that the enslavement of Italians was ok. Say there was a statue in the middle of your town of a big hero who advocated for and fought for the enslavement of Italians. Everyday you wake up and think about where you are and the town you live in, and you think of that statue. Would this effect you in a negative way? Would you find this something you could ignore? Is it ignorable? Would this effect the quality of your life? Is this really doing no harm?
PS I do not believe in or advocate the enslavement of Italians or any other people, this is just a big what if so people might understand how that might feel and how it effects people. One could insert any heritage in that place in order to make the same point.
I do agree that there are people who get offended by everything and anything, and they actually seem to be going around looking for things to be offended by. Some of this mentality may be part of the Cancel Culture mentality. But in terms of certain statues and say, the Confederate Flag, they may well have a good point that should be understood and looked at.
Thanks for reading
First of all i am a human being. Second i am an American and of least importance i am an Italian. To me my ethnic background is of trivial importance to me at this stage of life. A statue if historical, does no harm to me and if anything acts as a reminder of the past not to be repeated. . In your hypothetical my answer would be i would be wisest to get over it and i would benefit by ignoring and not giving the inanimate object power over me.
In America we have freedom of speech and expression and that goes whether i agree with what is being expressed or not. If my neighbor wants to fly the Confederate flag next door, that is his right that i paid for with 4 years of my life. I don't have to agree with him but i respect his right to express himself. However, If he brings physical harm to my house i will exercise my rights that i sacrificed 4 years for to bring an end to his/her harm.
What i see as a great problem for many is that when ethnicity becomes more important than our humanity there becomes a strong inclination for the dichotomy of a them and an us.which seems to me to do nothing for peace as an individual or society.
-
As to do with Cancel Culture as relates to "doing no harm". If a statue offend you, then ignore them. History is to be remembered , not forgotten. If we are to be harmed by statues that to me represent history but to you may represent something else..... then where do we draw the line? Some people are sensitive and offended by the slightest thing. How do we identify doing harm to the other? and where do we draw the line over things that one needs to get over and things that do need to be changed? Exactly what does the statement in the other thread by Paul S. mean when he says "All power to you whatever that may be, as long as you cause no harm, in my opinion." What about the lyrics " 'If I'm doing no harm, it shouldn't bother you'. Like wise, 'If you're doing no harm, it shouldn't bother me" that Ellen quoted and PaulS said "Sounds sound to me!
" How do you apply that to all this Cancel Culture thread? Is the defining of harm to others always opinion?
-
VR,
It would be best to put under our special topics forum under book discussions or media, whichever is more appropriate to the discussion.
-
18 hours ago, Burl said:
Flood stories exist worldwide, so it is likely it was on a global scale.
I would agree with that. I don't think it is a myth but the Bible version in my opinion may contain some past down confabulations.
-
Here is a paragraph from the president of ProgressiveChristianity.com Fred Plumer.
"I also suspect that even if a group of progressive Christians gathered to discuss the same subject, we would have a hard time agreeing on what we mean by the term God. It would be easier, I presume, for most of us to agree upon what we did not mean. We might be willing to let go, for example, the idea of some anthropomorphic being who may or may not respond to our prayers and supplications. Most of us would probably reject the idea of a supernatural theism that has haunted Western Christianity for over 1600 years. But things might start getting tense when we tried to decide if God is a separate entity or whether we believed in a non-dualistic creation, and “God” is in all things. We might resort to terms like pantheism, panentheism or even something called creatheism, (God is a holy name of Ultimate Reality), but I doubt even in this select group that we could agree on descriptive characteristics of God that would fit everyone’s perspective or anyone’s perspective for that matter. We might wonder if so many of us say we believe in “God,” why is it so difficult for us to agree on what we mean?"
Perhaps this is because God is unfathomable or a supreme Mystery incapable of of definition by language.
-
Many Progressive Christians today identify with Panentheism. In panentheism, God is viewed as the soul of the universe, the universal spirit present everywhere, which at the same time "transcends" all things created. While pantheism asserts that "all is God", panentheism claims that God is greater than the universe.
-
Hi viatimor,
I would not be interested in contributing through Zoom or Google meet. I think this site would be sufficient for your discussion and anything external would take away from this forum function. You could make arrangements to meet in a thread on this site for your discussions with those so inclined.
Joseph
-
Yes, welcome to the group. Feel free to present your specific ideas.
-
Ellen,
I think that your perception of the word of god is as good as any i have heard. What it is NOT seems to me to be easier to define.
-
5 hours ago, Burl said:
I’ve had this discussion with Joseph. If I remember correctly he said they tried to avoid all dogma. My argument was that is substituting one dogma for another.
The 8 steps are indeed dogmatic. They are put forth as truth without sufficient rational support.
I think most progressive Christians reject many of the 8 points of Progressive Christianity.com.
PC is an Episcopal mission to the underchurched. The 8 points are a ‘least common denominator’ designed to increase inclusiveness.
The 8 points while some may see them as dogmatic in my view they are not as they are subject to change as you have seen over the years. The 8 points in my view is not a belief system nor dogma. Here on our main ProgressiveChristianity.org site it reads .........
" Progressive Christianity is inherently always evolving and progressing. Please take these lightly but seriously. They are not dogma, they are simply a starting point to establish conversations and a foundation of values and beliefs that we have observed Progressive Christians generally share. It’s ok if you don’t agree with all the words or all the parts. We support your authentic path."
-
It seems to me regardless of the location (US, Austrailia, UK, etc.) when ethnic origin becomes more important to an individual than assimilating into that established society, there will always be a THEM and an US , whether white against black or black against white or any minority based on color or religion or culture, racism will prosper and always provide an opportunity to pop up its ugly head. We can have diversity but it must include assimilation for peace and law and order to prevail. That's my two cents or if your Australian with more than 2 cents, 2 bobs.🙂
-
Trump - great payout
One may need to know Biden's running mate before betting. He seems to have a major problem affecting him.
-
33 minutes ago, PaulS said:
The' young speak out - God, I hope not, or you guys are in much, much worse shape than it already seems!
It is. It's out of control.
-
On the lighter side ......
Thanks, Joseph 😃😄
-
The young speak out.
-
On 7/4/2020 at 7:06 AM, PaulS said:
I don't think it's that extreme - just demonstrating that people who feel they don't have a voice or aren't being listened to, took violent and destructive action back in the Tea Party days. I think you trivilaise the issue if you think it is only about some blacks being 'offended'. I think it runs a lot deeper than that, but each to their own opinion.
Perhaps this letter might clear up my trivialization. Quite true but humorous at same time
> This is an e-mail sent to Clarence Page of the Chicago Tribune after an article he published concerning a name change for the Washington Redskins.>> Dear Mr. Page: I agree with our Native American population. I am highly jilted by the racially charged name of the Washington Redskins. One might argue that to name a professional football team after Native> Americans would exalt them as fine warriors, but nay, nay. We must be careful not to offend, and in the spirit of political correctness and courtesy, we must move forward.>> Let's ditch the Kansas City Chiefs, the Atlanta Braves and the Cleveland Indians. If your shorts are in a wad because of the reference the name Redskins makes to skin color, then we need to get rid of the Cleveland Browns.>> The Carolina Panthers obviously were named to keep the memory of militant Blacks from the 60's alive. Gone. It's offensive to us white folk.>> The New York Yankees offend the Southern population. Do you see a team named for the Confederacy? No! There is no room for any reference to that tragic war that cost this country so many young men's lives. I> am also offended by the blatant references to the Catholic religion among our sports team names. Totally inappropriate to have the New Orleans Saints, the Los Angeles Angels or the San Diego Padres.>> Then there are the team names that glorify criminals who raped and pillaged. We are talking about the horrible Oakland Raiders, the Minnesota Vikings, the Tampa Bay Buccaneers and the Pittsburgh Pirates!>> Now, let us address those teams that clearly send the wrong message to our children. The San Diego Chargers promote irresponsible fighting or even spending habits. Wrong message to our children.>> The New York Giants and the San Francisco Giants promote obesity, a growing childhood epidemic. Wrong message to our children. The Cincinnati Reds promote downers/barbiturates. Wrong message to our> children.>> The Milwaukee Brewers. Well that goes without saying. Wrong message> to our children.>> So, there you go. We need to support any legislation that comes out to rectify this travesty, because the government will likely become involved with this issue, as they should. Just the kind of thing the do-nothing Congress loves.>> As a die-hard Oregon State fan, my wife and I, with all of this in mind, suggest it might also make some sense to change the name of the> Oregon State women's athletic teams to something other than "the Beavers (especially when they play Southern California. Do we really want the Trojans sticking it to the Beavers???>> I always love your articles and I generally agree with them. As for the Redskins name I would suggest they change the name to the> "Foreskins" to better represent their community, paying tribute to the dick heads in Washington DC.> -
Paul,
In the US we give preferential treatment to minorities. There are 14 Federal Grant programs specifically for minorities. In many cases to meet quotas Blacks are hired over more qualified Whites.
For federal contractors and subcontractors, affirmative action must be taken by covered employers to recruit and advance qualified minorities, women, persons with disabilities, and covered veterans. Affirmative actions include training programs, outreach efforts, and other positive steps. These procedures should be incorporated into the company's written personnel policies. Employers with written affirmative action programs must implement them, keep them on file and update them annually.
And then there is minority private organizations and Federally sponsored organizations to0 numerable to mention ....
These well-known organizations administer grant and scholarship programs for ethnic minority students.- United Negro College Fund advances education for African American students through scholarships and other aid programs. ...
- Hispanic College Fund.
- Bureau of Indian Affairs.
- American Indian College Fund.
- NAACP.
- African American College Grants
and many more
And Here is a rare CNN article on black privilege. If i formed an organization for the advancement of white people that would be racism. Perhaps this article might give you some insight to both sides of an issue in why many Americans (Black, White and all minorities) are getting fed up with all this racism talk.
https://www.cnn.com/2016/03/30/us/black-privilege/index.html
-
The June 2020 Monthly Discussion Board Report follows:
New Members Registered: 3
Total Members 1769
Total Posts 50801
New Members rejected: 0 Banned 0
Awaiting user email validation 0
New Topics Started: 31
New Posts: 209
Personal Messages (convers) 5
Active Current Members this month 8
Guest visits averaged app 5-10 at any one time
Items of Note:- None
Joseph Mattioli
Discussion Board Admin/Moderator/Forum Site Owner -
5 hours ago, PaulS said:
Back to your YouTuber who has never experienced racism in his life. I don't know if the Pew Research Centre is what you consider a leftist organisation who's research should be disregarded, but their research does seem to portray a different picture than happens to be your YouTuber's experience.
I consider the Pew research Centre neutral. (NON-partisan) They report polls and the polls you are showing me tell me 50% Blacks are pessimistic concerning whether they will ever have equal rights even though we have come a long way since Martin Luther King and others.. And of course they feel slavery has affected the position of Black people today and that our country hasn't gone far enough. The reasons they feel this way is not because of systemic racism, if it were so we would never have elected a Black president (for which i voted for) , but rather because as a result of slavery they were uneducated and underdeveloped. We have spent trillions on education, welfare, and priority business opportunities and giving preferences to minorities with program after program. It takes time and people, no matter what color have to take responsibility for themselves and work within the confines of society norms. The Irish, the Italians and other groups did it and strong family ties and sacrifices by our parents made it possible for us. While many Blacks have made better lives for themselves and their family a large percentage of Blacks have not and are still underdeveloped. Family units and culture have a lot to do with this as there are too many Black children growing up without fathers and too many single mothers with many children from different husbands. Perhaps they blame the whites and i have empathy for that but sooner or later you have to realize that you are responsible for yourself and say no to drugs, crime, and feeling sorry for your past and work hard to break free and make a new future. The Pew Centre says the great majority of Blacks say its extremely important to identify as a Black. Though i am Italian i identify as just an American. I don't look at ethnicity as central to my identity. It takes time but as long as you identify more strongly with a race as central to your identity you will find it difficult to fit in to society as a whole. The majority of whites are simply not racists.
-
9 hours ago, PaulS said:
It's not about 'seeing' color I think, but rather about having empathy for the reality that 'color' does actually exist. Do you have a problem if you are a minority voice and don't get your way - perhaps ask the Sons of Liberty and the Boston Tea Party.
Frankly, i think your analogy is a bit extreme. We are talking about some people being offended not about
9 hours ago, PaulS said:I don't say the world is fair, but that doesn't mean we don't strive for fairness. I am not suggesting anybody be dictated to a vocal minority, but am simply suggesting there is a genuine place for discussing this matter and moving forward with a little more empathy for black people who are saying that memorials to white people who were a evil to black people, no longer have a place in a modern world (other than maybe a museum). I don't think you need a civil war, but I do think there needs to be more discussion around the matter and not a simple dismissal of the issue because a minority are violent and destructive.
Discussions are fine but this here in the US is not discussions. Even many Blacks object to what is going on.
10 hours ago, PaulS said:I did, but he's not talking about looking at a broader issue such as how memorials to white imperialists affect black people, he is referring to modern individuals either being called out or doing the calling out over minor issues. He quite rightfully acknowledges that it is easy to make a mistake, to say something slightly in the wrong context, to make a poor choice in words, and that we need to be really careful thereafter labeling somebody because of this. Such words of wisdom are a genuine effort to bring people together rather than drive them apart, but he's simply not talking about addressing longstanding issues such as memorials on display of those who wanted to keep slavery intact.
Well, it seems to me this whole issue is about "cancel culture" . The monuments and statues are part of our historical culture and there is a clear movement to cancel them.
-
Here is a YouTube video by a black man that i believe is worth watching about this whole racism issue. Worth watching to the end.
-
12 hours ago, PaulS said:
Left leaning or not, the points that the Time article make out would still seem valid to many. Do you think it is possible that you are being hoodwinked by the Right, who may be pretending there is always a 'leftist' agenda when people are simply saying things the Right don't want to hear?
Being hoodwinked is always a possibility. 🙂 To me it is not a political thingy but rather personal experience. I do see such a media bias on both sides however 90 percent of mainstream media is slanted to only report the left side of things. My personal experience with people show the majority clearly does not oppose the statues but as i said it should be left up to the consensus of each community in which they reside and done peacefully.
12 hours ago, PaulS said:I don't think it is just the coronavirus or Left-leaning media that is generating this 'movement' (which incidentally I don't see as a single, united movement). As can be seen in the New Orleans example, action was taken over three years ago. And I'm pretty sure there would have been a fair bit of momentum required in getting to that point, so I don't see this as something just to blame on idle hands and an agitating Left. Although I do think the lack of ability of Trump to intervene and try and bring people together has fueled the fires most certainly.
There is nothing to stop the majority voting out statues and monuments. What we have now is an agitated minority trying to push their agenda on the majority. Sure it has been said before in times past with no change but that is because most people are not offended. When most are, then vote it down. I have no problem with that . Until then 'cancel culture' and destruction of property will get us no where except further division.
12 hours ago, PaulS said:That you have heard very little in your lifetime about this matter does not surprise me. 77% of your nation is white (66% if you exclude Latinos and Hispanics), 12% is black - is it any surprise that the voice of 12% doesn't get far? The fact that years ago other states had to enact new laws to prohibit the removal of historic statues seems to indicate the issue has been around for some time. Is it possible that largely 77% of people aren't really all that concerned about addressing this issue? Can you entertain the notion that you might have a different view if say you were a black man in Alabama or another state that glorifies the slavery-protecting Confederacy?
I might have a different view if i were a black man. But at the present i don't see color and would hope many of those of different color, creed, etc will get past such distinctions. Do you have a problem with if you are in a minority voice and don't get your way? 🙂
12 hours ago, PaulS said:Indeed a consensus would be a start, but again, if the black vote can't exceed 12% and the white vote can allow for up to 77%, I'm not sure a simple consensus is fair.
Who said the world was always fair? What is fair? If we are going to be a democratic republic, we must listen but we can't allow a vocal minority to dictate over such a matter or you will upset the majority and have even worse a situation. Do you think we need a civil war over such a matter? People will always be offended if things don't go their way and we have agreed that we are a democracy of sorts. (Actually a Republic)
PS Did you listen to the Obama 1 minute video on "cancel culture"?
" How do you apply that to all this Cancel Culture thread? Is the defining of harm to others always opinion?
Cancel Culture?
in General Discussion
Posted
I would vote to have it removed. If i lost the vote, i would let it go or if so inclined work toward garnering more votes to have it removed peaceably in the future.
You take it out of context by quoting a partial sentence. (a no-no on this site) What i said "A statue if historical, does no harm to me and if anything acts as a reminder of the past not to be repeated." Besides what i am advocating is non-violence change by the majority rather than the minority who violently destroy them and encourage it
There is a peaceful way for change and a violent way. While i am not bothered or harmed by a statue of Hitler, i would vote to remove it on community property of which i am a part. If it was on private property and not against the law, then i respect the right of the other and it does me no harm and if it does harm to you then it seems to me, you need to get over it or move away or work to change the law.
Vietnam Conflict. Joined voluntarily in Jan 1965.
Yes there are limits to free speech and expression. Limits are also placed on community property and on some private property by laws or ordinances. (ie: in my community you can't put up signs on your property, put up a mailbox, hang clothes outside, or keep a boat in your driveway to mention a few.) I signed up when i bought so it is a community ordinance that limits what i can do. I have no problem with legal limits and working within the law to change them if desired or necessary. Should the flag you mention be flown or left stranding in public? It's up to the the community and the laws of the land, not just me or my opinion.
In my view, individual and ethnic teaching and education. A pew research poll shows that Blacks place more importance on ethnicity than other ethnic backgrounds. We Italians were once in that boat in the US as were the Irish and other groups and there was much violence. Peaceful assimilation into society requires that your ethnic background not be more important than the society you are assimilating into. Otherwise, it seems to me, peace will not come as 'them' and 'us' refuses to exist as one.