I am doing a weekly blogspot now for Sydney Anglicans, called Defence Against the Dark Arts. The title is meant to be ironic-ish, if you hadn't guessed...
Here is my opening post.
I'd love you to comment there - but also, I'd love some feedback as to how the posts are coming out.
What will this mean for The Blogging Parson? I am not sure, but I tend to do 'recreational' blogging here (if you hadn't noticed). Some ideas tried out here will definitely be recycled - but that's a secret!
17 comments:
Look forward to seeing your posts on this. You are a "new face", according to the site.
"Recreational blogging": if you ever run for political office this could be a problem. You could always claim that you looked at words without ever actually reading them...
Come to think of it, that's not far from the truth in my case.
Ouch! Ouch!
well this is misplaced. I tried the knol, and was posted as anonymous, I find that rude, I am willoh, the fellow from the states to whom you recommended the books on the Welsh revival, I did enjoy the review. Nos Da!
Hi there!
Interesting post.
I'd very much liked to have posted my response over at sydneyanglicans.net, but I'm afraid the terms and conditions of the Sydney Anglicans website only allow official opinions, censoring as they do:
* Uncivil comments
* "Flaming or general nastiness"
* Pseudonyms (including my stage name, by which I am known to almost everybody). This policy is in fact potentially VERY dangerous.
* Comments that SA think might hold THEM legally liable
* "Generally objectionable material"
* Abusive, obscene, vulgar, slanderous, hateful, threatening, sexually-oriented or any other material that may violate any applicable laws. (Much of the Old Testament would be prohibited by a reasonable interpretation of this).
* Anything the webmaster, administrator and moderators 'see fit' to remove.
* Material considered to be 'blasphemous, offensive or in poor taste etc.'
* Material considered to be defamatory, libellous or otherwise legally actionable.
* Material relating to a minor where the consent of a parent or guardian has not been granted.
* Material that is demonstrably inaccurate or based solely on rumour or hearsay. (This presumably includes all the gospels, since there are NO contemporary eyewitness accounts of Jesus's life)
* Material determined by the CEO of Anglican Media to be detrimental to the Diocesan Mission.
When will Sydney Anglicans embrace the openness of communication that new media offer? What do they have to fear?
Until these unacceptably Draconian conditions are revised to allow real discussion of the issues facing us in the 21st Century, dissenting opinion is simply banned from your website. That is not how blogging works. It will lead to discussion that is one-sided: a 'circle-jerk' as it is termed on the Internet, or more traditionally, 'navel gazing'.
You are of course welcome to post (uncensored) comments at my personal blog which occasionally features commentary on Sydney Anglicans' activity, most recently the abominable attack on atheists by Narelle Jarrett.
In light of the suspiciously hostile attitude to freedom of expression currently embraced by Sydney's Anglican diocese, would it not be fairer to see the Sydney Atheists website as the true home of Defence Against The Dark Arts?
Hey, dave the happy singer, I'm with you pal. For the very reasons you cite, and the contemptuous avoidance of debate on matters that are agin the diocsecan line (like what is the biblical doctrine of creation) we had to start the SydneyAnglicanHeretics site at http://sydneyanglicanheretics.blogspot.com/
If you're just a parishioner, or a member of synod, or a parish councillor, or a scripture teacher, or have worked as a missionary your objection to heresy at Sydney is 'unwelcome...please don't rock the boat, please leave us in our middle class miasma, it's so comfortable, and the world treats us so nicely'
You know, I am glad you guys have encountered one another. It never ceases to amuse me how similar the creationists and the atheists are in the way they argue... !
Two words, Michael: ad hominem.
Eric and I have of course crossed paths before and it's naive of you to think otherwise; the Sydney Atheists and Sydney Anglican Heretics are naturally well known to one another. I consider both groups very open to discussion and have taken part in several chats in the blogosphere both on their blog and ours.
It is amazing to me as a skeptical materialist that young-earth creationists will freely expose their position to criticism while an institution with such terrifying power as yours cowers behind such censorship.
Your babyish retort that creationists and atheists argue in the same way omits to mention the way we do in fact argue: openly and frankly.
I Eric and I are hardly allies, nor do we find solace in sharing our mutual horror at your behaviour. I merely reiterate my utter disgust at the terms and conditions of your diocese's website.
Grow up.
Well this rather proves my point: fundamentalists of either type tend to resort to abuse in the end.
And it just isn't worth getting involved, because neither of you is really open to anything. All you get is mud in your eye. So...bleat all you like. I don't see why should care, frankly.
Nice dodge Michael, you really showed those Atheists and Creationists. [applause]
Now, back to the subject... why does SA seem to fear debate?
Michael, you are demonstrably wrong on practically every point.
Firstly, atheists can not be fundamentalists since there are no fundamentals. Atheism is merely a lack of theistic belief.
I don't know where you get the idea that I am not open to anything. I don't know what I can do to demonstrate this, but you might care to listen to the Sydney Atheists podcast Critical Mass which I co-host. We cover news about religion in Sydney and around the world and tackle questions of secular ethics, epistemology and apologetics with an open, skeptical and enquiring outlook (and a sharp dose of humour)
I try to assess truth claims on the basis of evidence and reason. Christianity, on the other hand, offers scripture, tradition, authority and threats in place of evidence.
It seems you are appallingly ignorant of atheism, and as in your other thread, I suggest you actually read some Dawkins or Hitchens yourself instead of being childish and sarcastic.
As for why you should care? Well, if you are correct in your beliefs it is imperative you care! I stand to be tortured for all eternity: do you think a little evidence is too much to ask?
Besides, 1 Peter 3:15 even commands that you provide a rational basis for your faith when asked! What more do you need?
Even if, as I conclude, you are utterly wrong, you entered the blogosphere as a professional clergyman. What you do and say affects the reputation of your club. Christianity is judged on the actions of Christians, as Matthew 7:16 attests.
I am making clear some very grave concerns about the behaviour of your institution, and you are responding with the intellectual maturity of the three-year-old.
I don't think it DOES fear debate. Not real debate. Not debate that is actually reasonable and not vituperative.
But why should it bear the cost of hosting a bunch of trolls? And it has acted against trolls regardless of their point of view.
Ah, my point proven again. How gratifying.
And I am not as a matter of fact ignorant of atheism. I know quite enough to know that Hitchens and Dawkins are not your best players -not by a long shot! Even atheist philosophers think so!
Neither The God Delusion and certainly not God is not great are philosophy texts: they are popular books aimed at laymen. I never claimed there were the very best books on atheism, I suggest you read them because they are written on a level you might understand. I now realise I was mistaken.
If you have any actual criticism of the points raised in the books, mention them!
'Even atheist philosophers think so' is an example of the logical fallacy known as the appeal to authority and it cuts no mustard with me. You see, that's what people who seek 'debate that is actually reasonable' care about.
And do you expect atheists to agree on everything? Atheism is just a lack of theistic belief: it is not a belief system, and nothing more unites us necessarily. Most atheists relish disagreement: it's how we learn to correct our misconceptions. It brings us closer to the truth. Contrast that with the ritual recession of the Nicene Creed!
I demonstrated your ignorance of atheism when I called you out on your accusation of fundamentalism and explained why it was utterly wrong.
'Ah, my point proven again. How gratifying'
Glad I could gratify you. You don't mention which point you think you have won. Probably an oversight.
You see, you have not actually countered a single point on a rational basis: you continue to hurl insults. I don't suppose you care much about others' feelings.
Even if preventing trolls is the intention of the terms, it's still an immoral intention. Censorship is a great danger, as Dean Phillip Jensen recently wrote on SydneyAnglicans.net.
I am, however, not a troll, I am attempting to bring my concerns to you directly. I believe the terms I quoted go far beyond silencing trolls.
Don't you think the case might be made that the intention is to stifle criticism and deviation from official Anglican doctrine?
That's it? Discussion now over?
There is a salient disingenuousness concerning how the Diocese and Moore relate to YE Creationists, the theological position that the Church traditionally held until the arrival of Charlie Darwin. You guys accuse us of being hillbillies, despite many of us having more than a PhD in Elizabethan Anglicanism or whatever. Some of us are even trained scientists who write peer-reviewed papers for secular science journals, and do research for secular organisations, and yet you show nothing but contempt for our conservative position concering origins, the one even your hero Calvin upheld. Yet you won't debate us to see where truth lies. That, outside of the ivory towers, and as my friend the atheist stated, IS unequivocally intellectually dishonest.
A vibrant Christian would welcome open debate on this issue.
'Open debate' - don't make me laugh! You guys don't do 'open debate'. There's no debate going on when it comes to you. You do unrelenting and unremitting direct personal abuse. If you had the courage of YOUR convictions, you wouldn't stoop to these methods. Even now, you are attempting to goad me by abusing me personally from behind a cowardly screen of anonymity. So don't talk to me about vibrant Christianity, or about open debate!
Again, as my atheist friend stated, you're playing the man, not the argument here.
OK, then Michael, I challenge you to an open debate, anywhere in Sydney, on this issue of origins. Loser buys the beers!
Post a Comment