Protestantism

» Brian Tubbs - My Standard

To all readers and participants here at Suite101 Protestantism...

In our discussion on Desmond Tutu and the death penalty, one of the participants said she had hoped that - as the Suite101 Protestantism writer - I would strive for "neutrality" in discussing these issues (at least in my blogs).

First, the blog is just that....a blog. And it's my personal blog, and Suite101 has given topic editors/writers pretty good leeway in terms of the blog. My blog entries are my personal opinions and/or observations as they relate to this topic.

The standard is a bit different for the articles, however. Suite101 asks its feature writers AND contributing writers to produce content that is (among other things) "well-balanced" and "objective" and that "adds to the debate."

Neutrality, however, is impossible. Especially in this topic area. That is something I can't do. Not in a 400 to 600 word article anyway.

I do, however, strive to be FAIR. And I welcome anyone and everyone to help keep me honest on that one. I am human, and I can err. And I have at times erred. So, I welcome any and all constructive criticism to keep my articles fair. And even my blog entries. Though the latter are more personal reflection and commentary, I still want them to be fair.

Having said all the above....

If you look at the welcome message (the one at the top of the Protestantism main page), you will see that I acknowledge UP-FRONT that my articles and blogs are all written from an "evangelical perspective."

When it's time for me to go and another editor takes over this section, that person may write from a different perspective. And that's fine, so long as she or he is open about that. As I have tried to be.

Again, though, please feel free to hold me accountable to being fair. If you ever think I'm being hostile, unfair, unreasonable, or hopelessly unhinged , let me know.

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» paper_turtle - My Standard

In response to My Standard posted by BrianTubbs:

When I used the word "neutrality" what I meant to convey was not the absence of an opinion, but objectivity and balance. That is, having an opinion but ALSO having respect for differing points of view.

Loaded language, or language which can easily be misconstrued, is NOT fair, Brian. Nor is it respectful of differing views.

There are all kinds of ways to say "I disaggree" without implying anything negative the topic being disagreed with, or the person who addressed the topic.

You can say you have difficulty understanding how the person arrived as his/her conclusion instead of saying the conclusion/person doesn't know what he/she is talking about.

You can point out flaws in the argument and refrain from saying something such as "any logical/reaspnable/sane/intelligent person would agree with me."

You don't have to label the person as liberal/conservative/whatever to get your point across. To my mind that's lazy--liberal = bad, and conservative = good.

You can clearly say, "I believe," or, "I think," or, "in my opinion," or "this is how I see it."

Now, most of the time you DO communicate with objectivity and respect for differing views. But you didn't with regard to Tutu. Nor did you really make clear where you stood on the death penalty.

peace and love,
Paper Turtle

-- posted by paper_turtle

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» paper_turtle - PS

In response to My Standard posted by BrianTubbs:

I also meant to say that loaded language, while it may lead to debate, does not usually lead to constructibve and open communication.

peace and love,
Paper Turtle

-- posted by paper_turtle

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» Brian Tubbs - But....

In response to My Standard posted by paper_turtle:

You can point out flaws in the argument and refrain from saying something such as "any logical/reaspnable/sane/intelligent person would agree with me."

But...anyone who is "logical/reasonable/sane/intelligent" WILL agree with me.

Just kidding.

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Seriously...I hope you read some of the complimentary things I said about Tutu in the discussion thread. You have to understand that I'm limited in my word counts in my blogs and articles - ESPECIALLY in the blogs. That seriously cuts into the disclaimers, clarifications, etc. that I can offer. In the case of Tutu, the only "negative" thing I said about him was that I associated him with those who see the Bible merely as a "conversation-starter." You responded that this was unfair, and articulately made your case accordingly. I welcome that.

Keep it coming, PT. I'm only human. And I welcome your feedback. If you feel I step out of line, let me know. All I ask is that you try to be as constructive and specific as you can be with your critique - and, in the course of the other discussion, that's what you did.

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» pink101 - Here's A Suite101 Site

.
http://religiousintolerance.suite101.com...
.
Check it out.

-- posted by pink101

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds