Vanguard controversy

[William Leisner]

TheLonelySquire said:

William Leisner said:

TheLonelySquire said:
Someone above mentioned a "lack of tolerance". Not tolerating that which is morally opposed to the will of God is not bigotry. It is God's will.

Funny... I thought Jesus said things like "Judge not, lest ye be judged," and "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." I also remember him making friends with prostitutes and (*gasp*) Roman tax collectors, and making outrageous claims like Samaritans could be decent people. Really, the only "intolerance" he had, as I recall, was against the Pharisees who thought being "religious" made them better than anyone else.

But, hey, if God wants us to be intolerant, fine: let's burn down the Red Lobster!!

From what I hear, Red Lobster stinks anyway.

Gee, it seems like the Lonely Squire completely ignored the words of Jesus.

Again.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

TerriO said:

Babaganoosh said:

Cicero said: The argument is that you can care for, like, and have respect for someone whose moral choices you disagree with

And political choices too.... I would hope.

Nah, on that note, you're screwed.

I believe it was Worf who once said..."That is a joke. I get it. It is not funny, but I get it."

Seriously, though, y'all don't mind? That's cool.

 

[William Leisner]

TheLonelySquire said:

David cgc said:

Some of us disagree on that interpretation of God's will.

And I respect your opinion. As you should respect mine.

[...]

TheLonelySquire said:

Sci said:

TheLonelySquire said:
Someone above mentioned a "lack of tolerance". Not tolerating that which is morally opposed to the will of God is not bigotry. It is God's will.

Then surely you don't mind us telling you that you're wrong to be opposed to homosexuality. After all -- we're just doing God's Will.

If you commit homosexual sin you are going against the will of God. Plain and simple. But do you really care?

So much for respecting a difference of opinion about God's will...

 

[Therin of Andor]

TerriO said:
And if he was supposed to be the most sympathetic character and eventually be held up as some kind of "hero" for the Pennington School, the series was only going to raise my blood pressure.

Of course, in real life the Pennington School was named for New Zealand ST fan writer, Lana Pennington, so perhaps "Vanguard"'s Pennington's offspring will also become journalists or writers and have a school named after them.

 

[Cicero]

Trent Roman said:

Cicero said:
Of avoidance, certainly, to which he is entitled unless based in scorn or contempt.

Unless? This is not flavours of ice cream we're talking about. It's people. If I exhibited avoidance of blacks, would I not be racist? Of Jews, anti-Semetic? The inherent rights of people demand that they not be ignored and cast aside simply for who they are.

You would be racist if you avoided blacks, and you might be anti-Semitic (a poorly appropriated term) if you avoided ethnic Jews (then again, maybe the issue is of culture, not ancestry). But mental wiring is not race, and discomfort is not the same as scorn, contempt, or disregard. If I avoid autistic persons because I find the way they won't look me in the eye unnerving, I'm not being bigoted. They might as easily avoid me if I looked them in the eyes all the time.

Someone who's uncomfortable with homosexuality is justified in avoiding it, so long as they don't also avoid homosexuals in contexts where sexuality isn't appropriate or isn't a part of interaction. (A homosexual would be as justified if uncomfortable with heterosexuality.) Different wiring can simply make someone uncomfortable, and they can avoid that uncomfortability as a simple matter of likes and dislikes.

An avoider of this type will lose out on knowing someone they might otherwise find to be wonderful, but isn't bigoted.

Religious opinion, perhaps, leading to (poorly founded) moral disagreement. He's made clear that he supports equal rights for homosexuals, considers them persons equal to himself, and respects the opinions of those with whom he disagrees. I don't see what is intolerant or homophobic in his position.

There's the avoidance, as I said. And there is little difference between religious opinion and religious intolerance... not when one considers the implicit threat behind 'not being right with God'.

There is a great deal of difference (separation by Sophists again). My legal opinion may be that you'll go to jail, but I may not think its right. Or, if I do, I might like you even though I think you're wrong.

It's usual that people dislike those with whom they disagree, but it isn't necessary. There's no reason to paint a man with a broad brush he hasn't indicated he deserves. Life is full of subtleties. So are opinions.

I disagree with him, but I suspect that it's his reasoning which is flawed, not his heart.

Irrevelant. I don't care how people feel. I care how they act towards others, what kind of ideology they see fit to propagate.

Relevant. One's feelings and opinions make one a bigot, not one's actions.

That's an informed opinion, but not one which bears on what the example is trying to illustrate. I might (for whatever reason) feel that flying is immoral, but still feel and behave compassionately and normally toward birds. You can love those who do things you don't like - whether your worst enemy, your closest friend, or a random member of humanity.

Sorry, doesn't work for me. Even if you take the example of a criminal that needs to be rehabilitated, somewhere you are expressing negative opinion of that person in suggesting that there is something about them that needs to be changed. Which isn't at all wrong in the case of the prisoner, but is when applied to those innocent of misdeed.

I may wish something about a person were different, but care for them all the same. I like Vice President Cheney in that he's a human being, and try to understand why he fails in the ways he does; I despise his policies, and consider him among the morally poor of all men.

This is an extreme example, but there are smaller ones all the time. It's vary rare for a person to find that every aspect of any person is how they'd wish. Yet we love people, all the same.

This is true, but I'll again suggest that TheLonelySquire isn't exhibiting signs of bigotry, but (foundationally flawed) moral disagreement.

And again, I ask: what's the difference? Why would discrimination based in faith be somehow better than discrimination based in, for instance, a belief in social darwinism?

TheLonelySquire's not arguing for discrimination, and has indicated that he opposes it. To answer your question, it's not better. It may even be worse if only because it stems from a greater delusion.

More to the point, there is a significant difference between person and act. You can love someone who does wrong, even though you despise what they are doing.

Most of the time, perhaps. But people compelled to act in a certain fashion because of who they are, of characteristics which cannot be changed, blurs those boundaries, for better or worse.

I don't concur. If it can't be helped, it's no longer an issue of disagreement. The trouble is that some persons recognize that homosexuality isn't a choice, while others believe (for poor reasons) that it is. That's where the flaw exists.

(Besides, homosexuality isn't an act, it's an attribute, like height and humanity.)

It can be both.

It really can't. Homosexuality will always be an attribute, hidden or otherwise, while homosexual acts will always be acts (whether actions of homosexuals or not). The two are related, but not interchangeable.

Most gays, I imagine, are born with their sexual preference... certainly, given the current cultural climate, I don't see there are many people who would choose to be gay if they didn't have to. But would such a choice be unethical? I'm not gay, but there's nothing, theoretically, that prevents me from choosing to have sex with another man. Would that choice be unethical because I'm not genetically predisposed to same-sex attraction?

That's an entirely different issue. Maybe it would be, maybe it wouldn't. There are different ethical questions involved.

I seem to remember a Superman comic in which a genetically engineered bomb argued that the Man of Tomorrow was interfering with its right to fulfill its purpose. Superman said to him: 'You misunderstand, I'm here to help you with that.' He then flew the bomb-man into the sun, where he exploded, fulfilling his purpose.

Random.

 

[Cicero]

William Leisner said:

TheLonelySquire said:

William Leisner said:

TheLonelySquire said:
Someone above mentioned a "lack of tolerance". Not tolerating that which is morally opposed to the will of God is not bigotry. It is God's will.

Funny... I thought Jesus said things like "Judge not, lest ye be judged," and "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." I also remember him making friends with prostitutes and (*gasp*) Roman tax collectors, and making outrageous claims like Samaritans could be decent people. Really, the only "intolerance" he had, as I recall, was against the Pharisees who thought being "religious" made them better than anyone else.

But, hey, if God wants us to be intolerant, fine: let's burn down the Red Lobster!!

From what I hear, Red Lobster stinks anyway.

Gee, it seems like the Lonely Squire completely ignored the words of Jesus.

Again.

Pretty sure that's a joke, Mr. Leisner.

FWIW, Red Lobster is pretty awful.

 

[Maestro]

People still eat at Red Lobster? Why?

 

[Cicero]

^ No idea. I haven't since I was eight.

(Maybe by 'is' should have been a 'was'. )

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

What does Red Lobster have to do with any of this?

 

[Turtletrekker]

I went to a clambake a few months ago and barfed up the whole meal. The wrath of God?

 

[Cicero]

^ The irrational burning of buildings in the name of the will of a god. It may be a poor example: if there were a just god, I'm sure they'd favor the end of Red Lobster.

 

[TerriO]

As long as I get the recipe for Red Lobster's biscuits first, I don't care. Those are some of the best biscuits on the planet, IMO.

Babaganoosh said:

TerriO said:

Babaganoosh said:

Cicero said: The argument is that you can care for, like, and have respect for someone whose moral choices you disagree with

And political choices too.... I would hope.

Nah, on that note, you're screwed.

I believe it was Worf who once said..."That is a joke. I get it. It is not funny, but I get it."

Seriously, though, y'all don't mind? That's cool.

Man, of all the people to have a Worf line pulled on, to have it be me, the person whose least favorite character in 24th Century Trek is Worf?

That's just f***ed up right there. *snerk* Touche.

Hell, I've had friends who were Republicans. I don't completely understand them, they don't completely understand me (a devout Centrist), but that's okay. Although, I did have to wonder about the female Republican who didn't care for Bush, but wasn't about to vote for Kerry in 2004 purely because his wife wasn't American. I kid thee not. And no, the woman who said that didn't have any Native American blood in her veins, either.

I've even voted for moderate Republicans before, but I was also living in Massachusetts at the time, where sometimes the Democratic candidates lean so far to the left they're coming back around on the right. This is why I'm a registered Independent.

The world would be a pretty boring place if we all had the same set of values and beliefs. As long as people don't try to inflict their personal beliefs and values on me, I won't try to inflict my personal beliefs and values on them. That's why they call 'em personal beliefs.

 

[Maestro]

I'm Catholic and live in the Midwest. Fish is the typical dinner on Friday nights, regardless of the time of year. I still wouldn't go to Red Lobster for my obligatory Friday fish dinner. Especially with the new chain of Joey's Seafood Grills out there and the nifty supper clubs near by.

 

[DanTheGrey]

Wow, a lot of posts since I first read this thread...

I enjoy the Vanguard novels plain and simple. Is there anything shocking to my sensibilities. No. The T'Prynn plot has actually grown on me as I see the pain that was inflicted on her. The adultery doesn't phase me because that's what humans do, have done and will continue to do as long as we have emotions.

This series is putting a human face on a frontier place in a frontier time. I realize that it might be sensationalism to sell books in some peopele's opinion, in others it's showing that people are people.

I enjoy this series, think that it's been very well written, close to the quality I've seen in the Titan novels. At first I was just dismissing it as DS9 in the TOS era, but as I've read the books I find I can give a damn about the situation some of the characters are in and know that if they keep to this standard of work I'll keep reading.

As I've said in some threads about the shows and movies, just because it has Star Trek in front of it, it doesn't mean I will buy it/watch it/enjoy it. I'll take each bit on it's own merits and see if it interests me.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Cicero said:
^ The irrational burning of buildings in the name of the will of a god. It may be a poor example: if there were a just god, I'm sure they'd favor the end of Red Lobster.

I still don't get it. What is it about Red Lobster that 1) upsets you so much, and 2) is relevant at all to this thread?

 

[Maestro]

I shall sample this book.

 

[TheLonelySquire]

Trent Roman said:

Maestro said:
LonelySquire, I don't think anyone is disrespecting you or your opinion regarding your moral beliefs

Just for the record, I am. I only respect rational arguments and/or hard evidence, and I have yet to see one of those deployed here, or indeed in decades worth of argument on this artificial issue. All people are free to hold their opinions, but that doesn't mean we need to respect the opinions themselves even as we respect the right to expression. A person should not be allowed to state an obvious error and go unchallenged simply by disclaiming it as his or her opinion. If someone said (to use an example from another thread) "In my opinion, the world is flat...", I wouldn't at all feel beholden to respect that opinion. As I do not this preposterous construct of fairy tale and phobia.

Cicero said:
Of avoidance, certainly, to which he is entitled unless based in scorn or contempt.

Unless? This is not flavours of ice cream we're talking about. It's people. If I exhibited avoidance of blacks, would I not be racist? Of Jews, anti-Semetic? The inherent rights of people demand that they not be ignored and cast aside simply for who they are.

Religious opinion, perhaps, leading to (poorly founded) moral disagreement. He's made clear that he supports equal rights for homosexuals, considers them persons equal to himself, and respects the opinions of those with whom he disagrees. I don't see what is intolerant or homophobic in his position.

There's the avoidance, as I said. And there is little difference between religious opinion and religious intolerance... not when one considers the implicit threat behind 'not being right with God'.

I disagree with him, but I suspect that it's his reasoning which is flawed, not his heart.

Irrevelant. I don't care how people feel. I care how they act towards others, what kind of ideology they see fit to propagate.

That's an informed opinion, but not one which bears on what the example is trying to illustrate. I might (for whatever reason) feel that flying is immoral, but still feel and behave compassionately and normally toward birds. You can love those who do things you don't like - whether your worst enemy, your closest friend, or a random member of humanity.

Sorry, doesn't work for me. Even if you take the example of a criminal that needs to be rehabilitated, somewhere you are expressing negative opinion of that person in suggesting that there is something about them that needs to be changed. Which isn't at all wrong in the case of the prisoner, but is when applied to those innocent of misdeed.

This is true, but I'll again suggest that TheLonelySquire isn't exhibiting signs of bigotry, but (foundationally flawed) moral disagreement.

And again, I ask: what's the difference? Why would discrimination based in faith be somehow better than discrimination based in, for instance, a belief in social darwinism?

More to the point, there is a significant difference between person and act. You can love someone who does wrong, even though you despise what they are doing.

Most of the time, perhaps. But people compelled to act in a certain fashion because of who they are, of characteristics which cannot be changed, blurs those boundaries, for better or worse.

(Besides, homosexuality isn't an act, it's an attribute, like height and humanity.)

It can be both. Most gays, I imagine, are born with their sexual preference... certainly, given the current cultural climate, I don't see there are many people who would choose to be gay if they didn't have to. But would such a choice be unethical? I'm not gay, but there's nothing, theoretically, that prevents me from choosing to have sex with another man. Would that choice be unethical because I'm not genetically predisposed to same-sex attraction?

TheLonelySquire said:
However, when someone here or anywhere tells me that homosexuality is normal, I'm going to tell them that it's not.

Homosexuality is normal. Genetically, it occurs in a fairly regular percentage of this species, and many others, and has continued to manifest itself throughout our history. It is uncommon, but that doesn't make it abnormal for those in whom in does occur, any more than left-handedness or red hair.

Being tolerant doesn't mean accepting something that simply isn't so.

On this, we agree.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

You may or may not believe me to be bigoted, racist, misinformed, or just plain wrong. What you believe to be evidence may be different than what I believe.

I believe homosexuality is not normal or natural and I try to limit my and my family's exposure to it wherever and whenever possible. It doesn't mean homosexuals are bad people. It means I believe their conduct runs counter to the Word of God.

Don't like it? Sorry.

 

[Baerbel Haddrell]

TerriO said:


The world would be a pretty boring place if we all had the same set of values and beliefs. As long as people don't try to inflict their personal beliefs and values on me, I won't try to inflict my personal beliefs and values on them. That's why they call 'em personal beliefs.

I very much agree. I see the story plot about Pennington and adultery in Vanguard so far differently. Please just see my posting as a different perspective, not an effort to change your mind.

I can understand your feelings very well but I think it is more complicated. I am sure, sexual attraction was part of Pennington`s reason but not the only one. I have re-read my review of “Harbinger” I wrote when I read the book and found out that my feelings haven`t changed.

After “Reap the Whirlwind” I am liking Pennington even more and he has become my favourite character in Vanguard.

Excerpt of my “Harbinger” review:

I don`t know yet why Pennington married this woman in the first place and why he didn`t divorce Lora pretty quickly after they got married. My insights are naturally limited but it was obvious to me that Pennington is a highly intelligent, sensitive man – the complete opposite of Lora. Maybe I will be proven wrong but I wonder if this was the typical story of a man being blinded by looks, sex and having fun without realizing that the woman he finds attractive has little else to offer. Lora is selfish, insensitive, incredibly immature and not very bright to put it mildly. I found the scene when he confessed to Lora how much the end of the Bombay has affected him and Lora was simply remarking that objectivity was never his strong suit very interesting and telling. The same applies to his reaction which I understood very well. I am sure, he could have had an intelligent conversation with Oriana, not only about this topic but about so many other things. I think this is the main reason why Pennington loved Oriana.

Her silly hysterical reaction after finding out about Oriana added immensely to my dislike of this woman and I thought: good riddance. Pennington is definitely better off without her. No, I can understand very well why he wasn`t faithful to Lora except that he shouldn`t have married her in the first place. I am much more wondering why Oriana became an adulterer. I can`t speculate on that because there is no information so far I can find. Therefore I also don`t want to judge her, at least not yet.

 

[tenmei]

The 'Red Lobster' running gag is my fault, I mentioned that in the eyes of God, that eating shellfish was thought to be an abomination on the level of homosexuality and questioned whether Squire had ever eaten shellfish.

 

[Cicero]

Babaganoosh said:

Cicero said:
^ The irrational burning of buildings in the name of the will of a god. It may be a poor example: if there were a just god, I'm sure they'd favor the end of Red Lobster.

I still don't get it. What is it about Red Lobster that 1) upsets you so much, and 2) is relevant at all to this thread?

1) I'm a vegetarian who grew up in a town full of Red Lobsters. Perhaps understandably (?) I'm not a fan.

2) It was used (randomly?) in an example upthread of a restaurant being destroyed because 'it's God's will'.