Re: Reclaiming SRQ
- From: Engineer <invalid@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 11:20:47 +0000
Ian Davis wrote:
Being a Quaker does not require being a member of the RSofF.
I am a Quaker who is not, by choice, a member of the RSofF.
Which reads, in part:
"Ultimately, however, it is not good enough to just say that no
particular beliefs are mandatory. The Society of Friends will
remain exclusionary and sectarian as long as its Meetings accept
only Quakers as members. It is with this in mind that we call
upon all Friends Meetings to topple this final barrier between
our beloved Society and the greater Society around us."
The blog cited discusses whether all memn=bers are Quakers, not
whether all Quakers are members.
Attenders can and do have the same level of commitment as RSofF members.
Members make at least one commitment that attenders don't.
Locical fallacy: begging the question. You aren't allowed to assume
that members are more commited and then use that as support when
arguing that members are more commited.
I could argue that attenders make at least one commitment that
members don't -- the commitment to be an attender. That would
be the same logical fallacy.
- Prev by Date: Re: Reclaiming SRQ
- Next by Date: Re: Faith, Power and the Internet
- Previous by thread: Re: Reclaiming SRQ
- Next by thread: Re: Reclaiming SRQ