Facing The Challenge web site / Ground Rules

[lou_selastic]

As a newbie I only posted the opinion that I thought the  
www.facingthechallenge.org/potter  web site contained an interesting 
article about the dilemmas some Christian parents have expressed 
about allowing their children to read or see Harry Potter. It did not 
occur to me that it would evoke such controversey. How naive on my 
part!

However, just to get some things clear, John Walton wrote (12/02/02):

< From Webster's: intolerance n. The quality of being intolerant; 
refusal to allow others the enjoyment of their opinions, chosen modes 
of worship, and the like; want of patience and forbearance; 
illiberality; bigotry; as, intolerance shown toward a religious sect.>

Intolerance, by any dictionary definition, is denying the right of 
others to hold opinions, choose modes of worship, etc. with which one 
does not agree. Disagreement is not intolerance. As such there is 
nothing intolerant about the views expressed on the FC web site.

Secondly, I really do not see why it should be so offensive to 
express the opinion that any particular belief system or faith 
is "wrong" (meaning incorrect or erroneous, NOT meaning unlawful or 
immoral). If Christians beleve that Jesus Christ is the only way to 
find God (because this is what Jesus claimed in John Chapter 14, 
verse 6), then any other faith which says there is another way to 
find God contradicts this. They cannot both be right. One of them (or 
both of them) must be "wrong".

You may think your bank account is 2,000 dollars in credit. Your bank 
manager may disagree and say it is 1,000 dollars in the red. You 
cannot both be right. One of you must be wrong.

Lastly (almost), it is going to be inevitable that with such a 
diversity of backgrounds, opinions and views expressed in this chat 
group that someone, somewhere is going to be offended by someone 
else's opinion about something (especially religion). So be it. But I 
really do not see why there has to be so much censorship in the form 
of banned topics (e.g. that book by Richard Abane), especially when 
us newbies have never seen the original postings. The skill is to 
disagree with someone else without being abusive or contemptuous.

Finally (really), John Walton wrote:

< In conclusion, in my opinion, while Facing the Challenge is less 
rabidly moralistic and polemical than Focus on the Family,..... it's 
still extremely limited in its knowledge and perception of non-
Christians, and its moralism is only slightly veiled.
Perhaps it should be called "Facing the Challenged" instead.> 

I really think to use terms like "rabid" and to mock those who wrote 
the FC article by referring to it as "Facing the Challenged" is 
abusive (contemptuous) and insulting. Perhaps a higher standard of 
debate would lead to less censorship in this chat group.

Lou_Selastic