The Synchroblog Controversy
Alright, controversy might be a bit of a large term for the situation. For those of you who don't know what this is about, probably most of you, I was recently visiting my friend Erin's blog, and she was mentioning that the synchroblog she was involved with could use some new writers. A synchroblog is an entity in which a topic and a date are chosen on a monthly basis and everyone involved writes on this one topic, and links to the others who addressed it. Many view points on a single topic.
I indicated that this seemed to be a christian synchroblog and as such I probably would not be welcome, but if I was I might be interested in offering my viewpoints on these topics. She looked into it, they took a vote, and big surprise: I was right. I am not wanted by their group. It should have ended there. It could have ended there. I would have been okay with this. But then they got insulting about it.
Apparently, the powers that be with their little synchroblog decided that while I was unwelcome in the existing item, they would work on creating an interfaith synchroblog on which I would be welcome. Wasn't that nice of them?
Wasn't it nice of them to decide that I was not good enough to play at their table because I didn't share their viewpoints, but they would set up a separate room I could play in. One where these people who didn't want me could choose topics for me to write about so the cute little Pagan could do tricks for them, tricks that were unsuitable for their main parlor room.
The thing about this entity is that if I were involved with it, none of them would be compelled to read what I wrote. They could simply ignore it as they undoubtedly would this consolation prize of theirs. It wouldn't be as if I was handed a microphone to spout my views in a room they were locked inside. In short, my presence would have no necessary impact on them whatsoever, except for their knowledge that I was there and had an opinion on their topic. I wonder if they have been secretly appalled as I have commented on blogs about this topic when their acceptable bloggers have spoken up? Big difference there? Not that I can see.
You see, it isn't like I am trying to force my way into their club. I was perfectly willing to accept that they didn't want my contribution. But the gall of them to offer to set up (they set up, not me) a forum in which my opinions on their topics was acceptable to share pisses me off. I mean I am seriously angry about this. About the condescension necessary to even offer such a suggestion. About the fact that these 'righteous' people undoubtedly truly believe this offer is something beneficial to us both. Like it allows them to go slumming, and allows me some precious stage time or something.
What makes me even angrier is the fact that I have tried to explain my position (not to bargain my way in, but so she will understand) several times, and now I post here, and I am not sure that I am succesfully conveying the reason for the anger, the reason I feel the insult that sparked this.
This isn't about them not including me, but about their alternative suggestion. How do I get across the insult and anger, and the reasons for them so it doesn't seem like I am just upset about not getting to play? Or have I?
Or is this just another pointless tirade in my life, or something close to it?
I indicated that this seemed to be a christian synchroblog and as such I probably would not be welcome, but if I was I might be interested in offering my viewpoints on these topics. She looked into it, they took a vote, and big surprise: I was right. I am not wanted by their group. It should have ended there. It could have ended there. I would have been okay with this. But then they got insulting about it.
Apparently, the powers that be with their little synchroblog decided that while I was unwelcome in the existing item, they would work on creating an interfaith synchroblog on which I would be welcome. Wasn't that nice of them?
Wasn't it nice of them to decide that I was not good enough to play at their table because I didn't share their viewpoints, but they would set up a separate room I could play in. One where these people who didn't want me could choose topics for me to write about so the cute little Pagan could do tricks for them, tricks that were unsuitable for their main parlor room.
The thing about this entity is that if I were involved with it, none of them would be compelled to read what I wrote. They could simply ignore it as they undoubtedly would this consolation prize of theirs. It wouldn't be as if I was handed a microphone to spout my views in a room they were locked inside. In short, my presence would have no necessary impact on them whatsoever, except for their knowledge that I was there and had an opinion on their topic. I wonder if they have been secretly appalled as I have commented on blogs about this topic when their acceptable bloggers have spoken up? Big difference there? Not that I can see.
You see, it isn't like I am trying to force my way into their club. I was perfectly willing to accept that they didn't want my contribution. But the gall of them to offer to set up (they set up, not me) a forum in which my opinions on their topics was acceptable to share pisses me off. I mean I am seriously angry about this. About the condescension necessary to even offer such a suggestion. About the fact that these 'righteous' people undoubtedly truly believe this offer is something beneficial to us both. Like it allows them to go slumming, and allows me some precious stage time or something.
What makes me even angrier is the fact that I have tried to explain my position (not to bargain my way in, but so she will understand) several times, and now I post here, and I am not sure that I am succesfully conveying the reason for the anger, the reason I feel the insult that sparked this.
This isn't about them not including me, but about their alternative suggestion. How do I get across the insult and anger, and the reasons for them so it doesn't seem like I am just upset about not getting to play? Or have I?
Or is this just another pointless tirade in my life, or something close to it?
Labels: insult, religion, synchroblog
posted by Wanderer at 12:32 AM
21 Comments:
Well, I do think there are aspects of the situation that I may not have been clear on or that you misunderstood...hopefully the last e-mail I sent you will help clarify.
Steven, it's not about your faith being unwelcome. Not at all. Please try not to play the 'all christians hate pagans' card, because that is an insult to those among this synchroblog group who have worked and are working diligently to mend those rifts. Many of the people on this list have active and ongoing friendships with those of other religions, specifically Pagans. It's not a religious bias.
Did you get that the other idea wasn't designed to appease you, but something that most of us actively were interested in participating in once the subject was raised? I do understand, but only to a point, and that is where I wonder if you haven't understood this to be something it is not? It is not a "here you go we'll throw you some scraps" but a "wow what a great idea, let's do that"? But you have to respect that not everyone wants to go there. So we're offering a choice.
I'll come back to this tomorrow. It's late. I am trying to understand. I want to. But only if you will do the like. And I'm sorry if I've made a mess of this. I'm only human.
Steven,
Greetings from a fellow Pagan and another friend of Erin. I've read your post, and I hope you will bear with me while I offer my own insights on this topic.
Let me start by saying that I understand the way you're feeling and I'm sorry that you feel insulted. Indeed, if we were talking about certain other groups of Christians, I'd be likely to share your concerns and even your outrage.
However, over the past several months, I've come to know a number of the participants in the synchroblog you're talking about. In fact, I came to know Erin because of her contribution to the September 2007 synchroblog topic. So while I certainly understand the way you feel, I would also gently suggest that you're reading things into the group's proposal and their motives that aren't accurate.
I'd point out that -- assuming my understanding is correctly -- this synchroblog was originally arranged by Pastor Phil. Pastor Phil already has strong convictions about the importance of interfaith dialogue, especially with Pagans. (I figure they have to be strong, given his willingness to let his previous denomination disown and denounce him for "getting too friendly with witches.") I'm sure he will take a huge interest in an interfaith synchroblog that emerges. And my interactions with him reassure me that he would never let it degenerate into the kind of "kiddy table" scenario you envision. I also feel strongly that Erin, Sonja, and the others that I know who are part of the synchroblog would likewise never let such a thing happen. These are people that value my friendship and spend time seeking to understand me better. I'm confident that they would treat anyone else involved in an interfaith synchroblog the same way.
I will note, though, that you raise some worthwhile points in my mind. For example, you wrote, "One where these people who didn't want me could choose topics for me to write about so the cute little Pagan could do tricks for them..." I had always assumed (and yes, Erin has already talked to me about the new synchroblog being proposed) that everyone would have some say in deciding what topics such a synchroblog would entail. I think it's a safe assumption for me to make, but at the same time, it's reasonable to put that assumption into explicit words so we're sure everyone's on the same page.
This comment is growing long, and I apologize for that. I appreciate you reading it, however. I won't tell you not to feel the way you do. I don't believe in telling people how they should feel. I would ask you, however, to try and keep an open mind and give an interfaith synchroblog a chance. If you don't feel you can participate at this time (though I think it would be great if a few of us Pagans signed up during the planning stages to make the end result more collaborative from the start), then perhaps you could just see how things progress to see if it works out better than you currently expect it to.
In closing, I would like to thank you. Whether or not you eventually decide to participate in the interfaith synchroblog, it's undeniable that your original inquiry to the group got the idea rolling. And as someone who likes the idea of such a synchroblog, I'm grateful to you for that.
Bright blessings,
-- Jarred.
Erin - Don't accuse me of playing the 'all christians hate pagans card.' I think you have come to know me better than that. You found me on a christian blog, I followed you to yours.
Seithman - I appreciate your response and don't worry about the length.
Both of you: I have given this further consideration and shared in e-mail with Erin as well that one of the things at the core of this is the segregation where it serves no purpose. The participants of one synchroblog could ignore my contribution just as easily if I was added to theirs or on a different one. Since this serves no point, the segregation becomes the point.
Second, I have been involved in many interfaith conversations, and if you haven't, Seithman, I will tell you how the "interfaith" events go. First, they are held be christians, who dictate the pace and direction. Second, faith doesn't come into the conversation. It is all a comparative religion class. I offered to join in discussion about faith in our lives. Not to get into a "My Goddess is bigger than your god" pissing contest. That is how these things always go as soon as you change the topic label from "faith" to "interfaith discussion"
I have been involved in many interfaith dialogues. While I've had many experiences that reflect what you've described in your comment, I've also had other experiences that did not. The experiences that have fallen into the latter category have been quite delightful.
I think it's unfortunate that you have already made up your mind how this new endeavor must turn out. By doing so and deciding you want no part in it (as I perceive you have done, though I welcome you to correct me if I'm wrong), you've effectively abdicated any opportunity you might have had to contribute to a different outcome. But it is your right to do so.
I appreciate your honesty about your feelings and it has helped me to understand. I do hope you would be willing to give it a chance when the time comes. It might surprise you.
Peace.
I have not made up my mind about anything, just stating where I come from in this. If I am misreading intentions, I am sorry, but I doubt I am. More likely seeing less than obvious motivations of the players themselves. In this I mean they may not realize it themselves. I may participate, but since there is no non-insulting explanation for the segregation, do you fault me for assuming this result I have seen numerous times will happen again?
I may participate, but since there is no non-insulting explanation for the segregation, do you fault me for assuming this result I have seen numerous times will happen again?
Actually, I disagree with your premise that there is no non-insulting explanation for the segregation, so I consider the rest of your question moot.
To be perfectly honest, I get the impression that you are reacting out of past hurts caused to you by other people rather than looking at this current situation as it really is. I think that is both an unwise and unfair start to the matter. After all, if you're going to automatically prepare for the worst behavior from the Christians involved in the effort and approach them with distrust, why should they approach you any more trustingly? After all, I've been in enough interfaith dialogues to know it's not always just the Christians who wreck things.
If you can explain a reasoning that is not antagonistic and insulting, then I won't look at this project from that perspective. There is nothing I can say here that will convince you folks that I am not anti-christian or inherantly distrusting of them. I remind you again that erin's is one of many blogs in which I have these faith based discussions all the time.
This is not a past-hurt situation, this is a here and now hurt situation. I will not repeat my own words as to why this segregation is for the sake of segregation, or why it insults me that this is put into play. I have explained both, and they both seem obvious issues to me.
If I were to ask you not to comment on this blog (I am doing no such thing) as you were unwanted here, but offer to start a second one on which you were allowed to comment, you would see no issue with this?
If you can explain a reasoning that is not antagonistic and insulting, then I won't look at this project from that perspective.
I'd say it's simple, really. They want both their private space and a public space for different forms of participation. Creating two separate synchroblogs is a good way of doing this. To me, this is akin to creating a ritual group that is for men only as well as one that is for both men and women. The existence of the men-only group does not make the more inclusive group an insult to women.
There is nothing I can say here that will convince you folks that I am not anti-christian or inherantly distrusting of them.
This is because, in my opinion at least, your actions are speaking louder than your words.
If I were to ask you not to comment on this blog (I am doing no such thing) as you were unwanted here, but offer to start a second one on which you were allowed to comment, you would see no issue with this?
I would find it odd. Beyond that, I would think nothing of it.
Seith - My actions speak louder than words? So my thoughts on this one situation erase all of my experiences on the various blogs I mentioned in the past. I know not why, but it is clear that you are hell bent on demonizing me here.
Since I volunteered to cooperatively deal with these people in the first place, and have been doing so peaceably for years, where the hell do you come off claiming my "actions" have suddenly erased all of this history and changed my position?
You would think I was odd and think nothing more of it? I don't think the "more" is necessary in that case. I apologize if it offends you that I think. I can't help doing so. Since it is a mailing group instead of a cooperative effort, there is no greater singularity with the two lists than the one. This means the segregation has no purpose but its own. Which indicates a basis purely on bias.
My issue isn't with christians. It never has been. My issue is with the kind of narrow minded bigotry that tries to keep any group out simply for being who they are rather than for any actual practical reason. It is against the kind of narrow minded bigotry that talks itself into thinking that isn't what they are doing so they feel good about themselves.
You don't have to be christian to be one of those people. The both of you have accused me of attacking christians, and I am not. I am attacking those people. There is a difference.
I am glad you chose to close up ranks with your "interfaith superhero." Did it occur to either of you that if he was so great at bridging those gaps maybe he should try to explain his groups position to me since you are both failing so miserably at it? That is if you truly wish that I understand or contribute and aren't just attacking me for sport.
I apologize if it offends you that I think.
It doesn't offend me that you think. It amuses me, however, that you have the arrogance to assume that you are the only person in this situation who is thinking. People disagree with you, so they must not be thinking. Or they must be less enlightened than you. Or they must have hidden motives that they don't even recognize, but are plain as day to you.
And yet, you have the audacity to make accusations of others acting superior and being close-minded. To be honest, I marvel at your ability to hold both of those positions in your mind without drowning from the cognitive dissonance that I would expect them to generate if I were to make the attempt.
It's clear this will go nowhere. So I will leave you to play the victim you perceive yourself to be. Just don't ask me to buy it.
Oh, I will also add that I apologize for upsetting you, as that was not my intention. However, I will note that I doubt I could have done anything else unless I was willing to concede your every point.
I like the fact that you apologize for accidentally offending me. Apparently I am misreading all of your personal attacks on my motives based on your non-existent knowledge of me? There I am getting all emotional again. I also undoubtedly misread your claim that I feel I am the only one who can be right. This was a casual comment, not an attack?
You know what the real pisser is? While you felt the need to attack me based on information you must have pulled from thin air since you don't know enough about me to make the claims, I came up with the answer of my own accord.
That is right. Me, who you have correctly tagged as closed minded, the only thinker, and the only one who could be right, came up with an alternative that could make this second list non-insulting and non-antagonistic.
Perhaps if you had stuck with the conversation rather than assuming you knew me, you could have helped me get there.
I am sorry if my desire to understand offends you. I am not sorry if my reaction of offense to prejudicial responses offends you, as that will not change. I may just be pissing in the wind most of the time in that fight, but I will continue to stand up against bigotry and prejudice it is who I am.
But, see, the other side of that coin is that discussion allows me the occasion to say that I may have been wrong in this example, and am willing to see where things play out to prove one way or the other.
I came across this by accident, looking for "Synchroblog" on Technorati.
I'm a member of that synchroblog, though I was away during most of the discussion you mention, and have only skimmed it.
It was started as a thing for a group of Christians, writing about Christian topics. One topic was about Christianity and paganism, and I asked a pagan friend to join in on that occasion, since I thought the topic might be of interest. But I wouldn't ask her to contribute every time, because most of the topics would be of little interest to pagans.
But some pagans started a pagan synchroblog, and bloggen on pagan topics. If they invited me to join in on a topic that interestes me, and where some of the things I might have to say interested some of them, I might join in for that occasion, but I wouldn't expect them to invite me to be a permanent member, and I wouldn't throw my toys out of the cot if they didn't.
As for the suggestion for an interfaith synchroblog, it was just the idea of some people to have a wider forum, one where people of different faiths and traditions could meet on an equal footing. If you're interested, join in, if you're not, don't. But I think you've misrepresented the motives of those who made the suggestion.
Hi - I just ran across this. I am part of the synchroblog that is at the center (I am new - I read the emails discussing the idea of including or not but I did not enter the discussion) and I just wanted to say that I think that anytime we exclude someone it is hurtful to that person. Are there good reasons to exclude? Probably. Does someone have the right to exclude? Definitely. Is it hurtful? I think it always is. So whatever the explanation I don't think we (the synchrobloggers) should be shocked that someone is upset about being excluded. It may have been a mistake and too self serving. But we are human and we will make mistakes - sometimes over and over again. Still, the whole thing makes me sad. I am sorry it has gone this way. -Liz
Here's a thought. If there was a Pagan synchroblog, would you want Christians taking part all the time? Because however non-proselytising the Christians might be, they're not Pagan, so their views on things are different. How would anyone know it was a specifically Pagan synchroblog if non-Pagans were taking part?
In my experience interfaith is organised by the kind of people who think there are many roads up one mountain, but your mileage may vary.
Sorry, I have been away. I do appreciate the comments from the newcomers, but I will point out to two of you my last comments, in which I indicated that I had come to my own conclusions as to how this might have been a less than insulting course.
Steve - It appears you missed the boat on my reasoning if you think the offense was to not being invited to your synchroblog. This started with my stated presumption that I would not be. However, I will not go again into why I was offended by the proposed alternative because, as I said, I have come to a conclusion (not necessarily the right one) that there is a way in which this was not insulting.
"But I wouldn't ask her to contribute every time, because most of the topics would be of little interest to pagans. "
This however is a precise example of why I am concerned about the interfaith blog suggestion. Quite the blanket statement to just assume your topics would not interest me. I think, if anything, it more likely that my take on those topics wouldn't interest you. Which is fine. Nothing about the format requires you to read my take on it.
I do thank you for your response, though, and agree with the last statement, in part. I think I misunderstood the motives of said individuals. We will see.
Yvonne - "Here's a thought. If there was a Pagan synchroblog, would you want Christians taking part all the time? Because however non-proselytising the Christians might be, they're not Pagan, so their views on things are different. How would anyone know it was a specifically Pagan synchroblog if non-Pagans were taking part?"
The topics, not the people would make it christian, pagan or other. I think that if the words didn't make the person's position clear, the title would be irrelevant.
As for the different views, that would kind of be the point. I am not big on closed community kinds of thinking. No matter how good intentioned, no matter how true one's position, it suffers from stagnation. I would think an outside viewpoint could help that.
Still, I was not trying to muscle my way in. I have already been clear on why I felt this was a slap in the face with the interfaith synchroblog. I have also indicated that I may have been wrong, and while one who initially chose to argue and label me instead of helping me to understand, I did reach such an understanding of the potential position of those who suggested the interfaith synchroblog.
Grace - I am sorry it went that way too. Although, honestly, I have virtually no readership on this blog at this point, and as such find it absolutely amazing that this actually managed to reach its way back to the folks involved. My words had basically been intended for my friends, and thus not particularly sanitized for the public because they know me and I didn't think anyone else was looking.
I certainly wasn't trying to pick a fight with the blogging community over this.
In truth I was more angry with the means at which a complete stranger chose to judge me rather than converse with me on this issue than I was about the issue itself.
Wanderer,
If you'd like to take part in a synchroblog, we are having one on 8 October. You can find more information about it here: Notes from underground: Interfaith synchroblog and forum
Steven - I just want to interject again that I have enjoyed getting to know you as much as I have, and I like the things you have to say. Your perspective makes me think and look at things differently. For what it's worth.
Post a Comment
<< Home