On Fri, 29 Nov 1996, T.A. RAYBORN wrote:
> Just because an idea is unpopular does not mean it should be
> censored. I was one of the infamous posters in the "great limerick
> controversy" this past autumn, but the issue there was one of the
> relevance of joke posts to the list, not controversial opinions. I
> respect those who disagree with me on that, and agree to disagree.
Did it occur to you, that some of the limericks, would have appeared to
be in very poor taste to those who do hold religious beliefs? The same
applies to some of the comments on the banned film on Teresa of Avila. I
have said nothing about these comments, but I am saying it now, since
everyone seems to be so thin-skinned when someone speaks a "minority"
(apparently) opinion regarding homosexuality. There seems to be
hegemonic view on the list that its members are non-believers. Hence
personages or objects of veneration are fair game for crude jokes but
convictions about the rightness or wrongness of homosexual behavior are
may not even be criticized in relatively civil language. What if someone
had made a crude limerick about gay sex on this list? Why are crude
limericks about medieval saints funny but a crude joke about a gay person
would (I assume, judging from the response to Joe Pope's non-joking
statement) be instantly denounced.
How about civility and respect for those to whom the beliefs held by
medieval Christians are still matters of religious devotion as well as
civility and respect for those for whom the beliefs held by medieval
Christians are quaint myths?
And why can't someone who thinks sodomy is wrong say so without being
called a bigot? Why can someone who thinks sodomy is right call someone
who says sodomy is wrong a bigot, ignoramus etc. without being ashamed of
his incivility?
Dennis Martin
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|