Re: Did your community celebrate last night?
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 ===


Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.