Stuff and nonsense -Reply

[JMH ACLJ]

In a message dated 97-12-08 18:56:04 EST, you write:

<< The first
 use of highly polarizing words in this exchange was his--the word
 "perverse" was the least offensive of those he used, as I recall--and I
 think the list would be a lot better off if he would try to show as much
 respect to others as we are trying to show him.

  >>

Imagine this then:  you sign onto a list in which reasoned discussions of the
role of religion and law in our society;  as you read correspondence, you are
shocked to be exposed to a vitriolic bit that asserts that Joseph Smith was a
heroin addict who turned to creative writing to support his habit or that
Moses was a two-bit sideshow caricature whose only claim to fame was murdering
Egyptians or that Bishop Spong takes money from American Atheists to spout his
lines or that the Pope consulted with Ouija boards before issuing encyclicals
or that Mother Teresa actually used ministry money to purchase shares, in her
own name, in blue chip stocks, or that Billy Graham doesn't believe one drop
of the nonsense he has spewed all these years.  Are you offended?  Perhaps.
Perhaps not.  Is what you read offensive?  Undoubtedly.  The use of that line,
with its well known, well established meaning, "the love that dare not speak
its name" was chosen by its contributor to this list quite deliberately and,
to me at least, quite offensively.  I guess if you weren't offended by the
instigating reference you can take comfort in the old adage, "de gustibus non
disputandum est."  If it is not possible to discuss religion and law without
insulting each other's chosen deities, then the conversions will be brief
indeed.

On my part, if I misperceived the author's intent in imputing homosexual
orientation to the Lord Jesus Christ in the reference to which I was
responding, I apologize.

Jim Henderson
ACLJ