Re: Did your community celebrate last night? | <– Date –> <– Thread –> |
From: mark mccarthy (masterbuilder009yahoo.com) | |
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2008 11:51:51 -0800 (PST) |
A village is a small enough social unit that you may gather a narrow slice of human interest, and it's the Branch Davidians all over again. Or - You could figure out how to value real diversity. Liberal, shmiberal, what matters is tolerance and respect for those who don't share your cherished notions of religion. Sincerely, Mark McCarthy --- Matthew Whiting <mewhiting [at] gmail.com> wrote: > > Dan, > > Congratulations on braving the seemingly liberal > world of cohousing. I've > done a lot of talking with people about cohousing at > the Farmers Market here > in Provo, Utah trying to build the size of our > forming group. Being part of > the dominant religion here, sometimes that would > come up in conversations > (though it would have regardless of identification). > I found a good way to > explain my interest in cohousing and to keep the > group > "non-denominational." I would explain that the > group is not religous based > but my religious belief certainly plays a large part > in why I am not just > interested in the idea of cohousing but working on > making it a reality > here. That approach seemed to work well to leave > the door open to > discussing how my religous beliefs inform my values > and interest in > cohousing and leave the conversation open to move on > to other topics. > > I think your comments on diversity and love were > wonderful. Thank you for > sharing them. Love of God and love of neighbor are > a sound endorsement of > cohousing in my mind :) > > All the best to you where ever you are at, > especially in keeping with the > "voluntary simplicity" of Christian monasticism. > Cohousing certainly isn't > anti-religious, you just need to get used to the > different vocabulary - > using both makes all feel welcome :) > > -Matt Whiting > Utah Valley Commons > Provo, Utah > > On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 1:36 PM, Dan Hazen > <dan.allencreek [at] verizon.net>wrote: > > > > > Greetings, > > > > As a long time "lurker" on this list, I feel > compelled to, for the first > > time, offer up some thoughts. Until now, I have > been soaking up information > > because I am, as yet, only one person in the very > early stages of > > developing a co-housing plan in my area. > > > > My plan really blends two ideas: the "structure" > of Co-housing and the > > "values" of Christian monasticism. Being an > Evangelical Christian sometimes > > places me in the center of the majority, and > sometimes, far to the fringes > > of a minority. It all depends on the group I'm > relating to. > > > > This brings me to the concept of "diversity" as > Diane addressed it below. > > It's always been interesting to me that > "diversity", divorced from any > > other > > supporting value, has become a value unto itself. > The community that I hope > > to build one day will be open to all, regardless > of faith, background, > > race, > > gender, criminal record, politics...you name it. I > suppose I DO plan to > > discriminate against other species :-) though that > could change too! > > However, "diversity" is not the value that drives > this openness. It's love. > > > > The realization on the part of some "diverse" > co-housing communities that > > there might be some people who did not hold to a > certain political view is > > an indicator that diversity (as a value by itself) > has (at best) limited > > value. > > > > There is a very famous passage in the Christian > scriptures which underlines > > this. Many people have heard portions of 1 > Corinthians 13 in the setting of > > a wedding (which is lovely, but not the first > context for the words). The > > first context was in teaching people how to live > together in community: > > > > "1If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, > but have not love, I am > > only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2If I > have the gift of > > prophecy > > and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, > and if I have a faith that > > can move mountains, but have not love, I am > nothing. 3If I give all I > > possess to the poor and surrender my body to the > flames, but have not love, > > I gain nothing." > > > > In other words, "I can value diversity all > day...but if it is not founded > > in > > love it's hollow." > > > > It is not my goal here to proselytize for the sake > of Christianity, or even > > for the sake of "love". I simply want to > contribute to the discussion the > > idea that diversity by itself is really an > illusion in terms of a "value". > > It can certainly be a GOAL if one can find some > intrinsic value in it. But > > then that's the point: if the intrinsic value > behind the goal of diversity > > is not love - then what could it be? > > > > It COULD be something like "creating a healthy > balance of people "types" in > > the community to insure the stability of the > community". But then we've got > > to ask ourselves what we do with people who are > "diverse" but, who by > > nature > > and by definition, will DE-STABILIZE the > community? Suddenly we find > > ourselves in a conundrum: If we value diversity, > yet person X will > > destabilize our community, then we must admit that > we are actually > > committed > > to LIMITED diversity; that there are in fact "some > kinds of people" we > > cannot accept into the community. Therefore, > "diversity" as a central value > > loses its meaning. > > > > As a staunch advocate for personal liberty, I > think communities should > > establish criteria for membership. People will > join or not based on their > > resonance with those criteria. However, to then > establish "diversity" as a > > central value in such a community is to fool one's > self and potentially > > build dis-function into the community because the > TRUE, UNDERLYING values > > go > > un-spoken, camouflaged beneath the stated ones. > > > > As someone who has been accepted in "diverse" > communities and also excluded > > from "diverse" communities, I believe that > "diversity" is really not what > > most people are after. Building a community based > on their personal values > > is. It is for me anyway. > > > > Some may say, "Well, my personal values INCLUDE > diversity." I would say, > > "Great! Do you have ANY criteria for membership in > your community?" If the > > answer is "yes" then I would say that it CAN'T be > diversity that you're > > after. You have only limited diversity and there > is a DEEPER value that > > establishes your criteria for membership. For > example, you might reasonably > > embrace "diversity" but choose to exclude those > who don't accept consensus > > leadership. Your diversity value was just trumped > by the value of > > maintaining unity and order. One could argue that > this sounds like a > > "Strict > > Father" approach, which isn't always bad...IF you > understand that your own > > value system is based on the deeper value, and not > the surface value of > > diversity. > > > > I'll admit it: I'm not interested in diversity. > I'm interested in loving > > God, and loving my neighbors, whoever they are. > That may or may not result > === message truncated ===
- Re: Did your community celebrate last night?, (continued)
- Re: Did your community celebrate last night? Karen Carlson, November 5 2008
-
Re: Did your community celebrate last night? Dave and Diane, November 7 2008
- Re: Did your community celebrate last night? Dan Hazen, November 7 2008
- Message not available
- Re: Did your community celebrate last night? Matthew Whiting, November 8 2008
- Re: Did your community celebrate last night? mark mccarthy, November 13 2008
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.