"nonprogrammed divisions of Quakerism"
- What is this? I'm imagining brainwashing vs. deprogramming, which I suspect is wrong, wrong, wrong. :-)
- I know something about the brainwashing vs. deprogramming issue. May I help? --Ed Poor
- First we have to find out what the person who wrote that means. I doubt he means it in the sense you took. Quakers are very far from "cultish" (and I use the term advisedly).
- I was the one who wrote it, and perhaps I should have said "unprogrammed" rather than nonprogrammed, but in any case, it refers to Quakers who continue the traditional style of silent worship without a paid minister, where there is no predefined "program" of service. It is described in the article on Quakerism, if you are interested. :)
- I just deleted the word. It didn't add much to the discussion. Sorry to tramp on you Egern, I think using "unprogrammed" OR "nonprogrammed" without taking the time to explain what that means, is too easily misunderstood. --Dmerrill
I would never slap you, D. Your tweak of my tweak looks fine:
- Homophobia (etymologically homo = same, phobia = fear) is never used according to its etymological meaning, fear of sameness. Generally it is taken to mean opposition to homosexuality, or alternately, hatred and fear of homosexuals themselves.
I was even thinking of shortening it to:
- Homophobia (etymologically homo = same, phobia = fear) is generally taken to mean opposition to homosexuality, or alternately, hatred and fear of homosexuals themselves.
I think the difference between etymological meaning and usage is interesting and should remain. --Dmerrill.
- So be it. It's clear, accurate and interesting. What more could an encylopedia entry aspire to?
But I have a problem with the following sentence, being one of the "religious people" it refers to:
- Religious groups and some others strongly deny that their disapproval of homosexuality, often based on their interpretation of religious scripture or principles, constitutes homophobia.
Religious people, in my experience, don't work very hard to throw off the label 'homophobic'. What they expend much time and energy disputing is the claim that irrationality, fear, or hatred is any part of their motivation or actions. Perhaps an article on hate speech would clear this up, er, bring this into focus.
Now, don't get me wrong. I'm on friendly terms with (a small number of) homosexual men and women. I have managed neither to hide my disapproval of homosexuality or alienate them completely. I also know quite a few 'fornicators' and 'adulterers' and manage to be on good terms with them as well. (Pats self on back) My motto is love the sinner, hate the sin.
It works, because my disapproval of (what I regard as) immorality is rather faint, almost like a parent who wished their son had become a doctor instead of a musician. I'm actually rather easy-going.
- Then by my definition, you're not homophobic. I'll take a stab at correcting the sentence you referred to. I have an idea how it can work. --Dmerrill
Thanks, and I like the way you wrote the following, because the "lumping" does seem motivated to change the lumpee's mind:
- . . . used by advocates for social change to indiscriminately lump together true homophobes (i.e., those who actively fear and loathe homosexuals) with those who merely disapprove of homosexuality, perhaps on principled or religious grounds, in order to shame the latter into abandoning their disapproval.
I didn't write that. I've done a lot of work on this article, but not all of it by any means. That's Wikipedia fer ya! --Dmerrill