There are no neutrals there

The comment thread in Fred’s TF post last week got me thinking again about the ways in which the Slacktivist/Slacktiverse community has come to feel like a virtual “safe(r) space” for me, and how much it can bother me when people invade that space with hurtful language. When addressing some people whose comments were hostile toward those with mental illness, I stated my observation that “this comment section tends to be a place where greater consideration is given to people who have experienced marginalization or who are more vulnerable due to any number of factors relating to their identity.”

After I wrote that I realized that what I was articulating was a version of something called the preferential option. Given my personal spirituality and formal religious education, I tend to think in theological categories, and the preferential option is a theological term that has a lot of significance for me. It’s probably the single most important concept I learned during my years of studying theology in terms of what has shaped my personal ethics. It’s become a primary lens through which I look at the world, and it’s helped me time and again to answer the question posed by the old labor song: “Which side are you on?”

The values underlying the preferential option are as old as scripture, but its modern articulation came about in large part due to the work of Catholic Latin American religious leaders in the mid to late 20th century. The convening of the Second Vatican Council in the 1960s led to the Catholic Church acknowledging that it needed to be more engaged with the modern world. But that engagement had a decidedly Eurocentric vision (such as addressing an emerging post-modern atheism), so the bishops of Latin America convened their own regional conferences so that they could try to articulate a vision of reform that would be relevant to their context. They drew on work that was already being done at the grassroots level, where religious communities were attempting to address widespread poverty and political repression. This theology of liberation that was being practiced in small Christian base communities began to be formally articulated and written down by people like Gustavo Gutiérrez. The concept of the preferential option became part of this articulation of a new contextual theology.

Liberation theology, broadly defined, is grounded in a vision of a God who desires fullness of life (John 10:10) for humanity, and a belief that God has a particular concern for those who experience oppression and marginalization. As followers of the God of Life, Christians (and all people of good will) are invited to live life in a way that prioritizes the lived experiences of the oppressed, and to make moral decisions that will ultimately lead to an end of that oppression and suffering. This is where the preferential option comes in: it is choosing to act so that “the last shall be first.” It’s about beginning to build the kin-dom* of God during our time on earth, and it’s a rejection of the kind of theology that silences the oppressed by telling them that they must patiently suffer in this life in order to be rewarded in the life to come. By listening to (and prioritizing) the experiences of those on the margins of society, moral action is shaped by a desire to alleviate that suffering, often by attempting to find the root cause of that suffering and to dismantle it at its source. (This is where liberation theology gets criticized as being “too political” because it envisions taking concrete action in the world: to paraphrase the late Bishop Hélder Câmara, not to merely feed the poor, but to ask the hard question of why the poor do not have food.**)

I realize that not everyone at The Slacktiverse or Slacktivist blog is a Christian, or even religious, and even if they are they may not consider the preferential option as part of their moral framework. Still, I see the principles of the preferential option at work in this little corner of the Internets, and it makes me happy. For example, I see it at work when commenters are called out for using offensive or triggering language. When the offenders then claim that it’s only fair that they be able to say whatever’s on their mind, or that it’s a matter of free speech, there is typically a swift and overwhelming response that demonstrates a key tenet of the preferential option. There is often a difference between what is fair and what is just, and when the two are at odds, the preferential option teaches that we must strive to opt for what is just. In this example, it would certainly be fair to let the offending commenters continue to use their hurtful terminology, but because of an overriding concern for the feelings of and larger history of oppression faced by those who are hurt by those words, many people choose to take a stand and made it clear to the offending commenters that their words are not welcome. This kind of solidarity and willingness to look out for the needs of someone who may not have the spoons** to deal with a flame war is something that keeps me coming back to the Slactiverse.

I’m interested in hearing from others who have been a part of making The Slacktiverse/Slacktivist blogs a safe(r) space. Does the preferential option resonate with you? What are the ethical frameworks or moral guidelines that you rely on for guidance in how to deal with a situation of oppression? How do you decide which side you are on? When, if ever, is it OK to remain neutral?

* The phrase “kin-dom of God” was coined by theologian Ada María Isasi-Diaz, who states that the word kingdom “is obviously a sexist word that presumes that God is male. Second, the concept of kingdom in our world today is both hierarchal and elitist…The word kin-dom makes it clear that when the fullness of God becomes a day-to-day reality in the world at large, we will all be sisters and brothers--kin to each other."

**Câmara’s famous quote: “When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why are they poor, they call me a communist.”

*** The story of the spoon theory can be found here.

--Victoria
____________________________________________________________________________

 

The Slacktiverse is a community blog. Content reflects the individual opinions of the contributors. We welcome disagreement in the comment threads, and invite anyone who wishes to present an alternative interpretation of a situation to write and submit a post.

Comments

[Raj]

A lot of people - including many of the "I have the right to say what I want" types on Patheos - don't understand the difference between having the right to do something and being right about doing it.

[Izzy]

I think it's always okay to remain neutral, in that we all have to choose our battles, I don't always speak up when I should, etc. It's almost always better to say something if you're reasonably sure that people are getting hurt. At least in this context.

And the "I have the right to say this" people bug me a lot. Yes, yes. You have the right to say whatever you want. You also have the right to stop washing, chew with your mouth open, and fart loudly during formal occasions. And, you know, good luck with all that.

[Lonespark]

This is the Christianity I was raised in, at its best. Between this post and a poem on Street Prophets on the anniversary of Archbishop Romero's assassination...and all the solidarity actions today, honoring Dr. King's struggle on behalf of the lest of our kin...

[guest-again]

'When the offenders then claim that it’s only fair that they be able to say whatever’s on their mind, or that it’s a matter of free speech, there is typically a swift and overwhelming response that demonstrates a key tenet of the preferential option.'

Censorship of the unjust as the answer to hateful speech?

Yes, it hasn't happened here, presumably (Fred was the key element of Slacktivist, never the comments, and he didn't seem to feel much need to ensure that those responding to his work fit into a pattern), but the framework is being built, with all the fine ideals and goals that have always accompanied the act of ensuring that the unpleasant, the uncomfortable, and the incorrect are kept at a distance. Which is everyone's privilege, but always a challenge with an open online community.

My understanding of liberation theology, at a church run by Missionshurst priests, is a bit different - at least our church seemed to feel that supporting schools and teaching people to read was the best way for a better society. Sadly, the people in charge in various heirarchies felt that the unpleasant, the uncomfortable, and the incorrect truths being taught were not acceptable.

When our priests were replaced, 500 families of 1500 left the parish. Those families too found the reality of their new priests unpleasant, uncomfortable, and incorrect.

Liberation theology essentially died because it was threatening speech to an entrenched group of people (many people, including priests, nuns, and a bishop were killed for what they said).

Good luck on achieving a balance - hopefully it won't be lost under the ever tempting delete key.

[Mink]

And, of course, liberation theology is officially condemned in the Roman Catholic Church.

It's sad, yet almost inevitable. The reasons why liberation theology was roundly condemned by the RCC are similar in many ways to why Protestantism developed so many sects and denominations -- there are many interesting similarities, to the point where if it had gained more ground, it could have been considered another Reformation. It did not; it was and continues to be squashed with as much ferocity as Glenn Beck decries 'social justice.' There is an attempt to make the term equal to communism and fascism and all the other buzzwords that authoritarians like to say are 'bad.'

Interesting trivia: It was in 1984-88 that liberation theology was denounced by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. The Prefect of the Congregation at the time was Cardinal Ratzinger, currently Pope Benedict XVI.

[Raj]

guest-again,

During the formative period of The Slacktiverse, many of us expressed very strongly that we were against censorship even in the interests of curbing offensiveness, and I, for one, don't recall reading any pro-censorship comments. As for "ensuring that the unpleasant, the uncomfortable, and the incorrect are kept at a distance", it is the consensus of the community that the best way to do that is for community members to call out the offenders (and we have a history of being quite good at that). Censorship will be hard-pressed to make any kind of toehold in this community .

[Ross]

@guest-again: You seem to have missed a key point, which resulted in your making the Usual Privilege-Defender's Bullshit Point: No. One. Is. Fucking. Taking. Away. Your. Freedom. Of. Speech.

You*'re still just as free as you ever were to post vile, dehumanizing, privilige-flouncing, hateful screeds. No one's stopping you. No one's redacting you. No one's deleting you.

And *my* free speech means that I get to tell you* exactly which oriface you can introduce your speech to.

Around these parts, we don't deal with people posting hurtful things by taking away their freedom of speech.

We deal with it by using _ours_.

[Lila]

Popcorn, anyone? ;-)

[Dav]

guest-again, are you warning us that we might rise up and kill the rude?

Also "the incorrect truths being taught were not acceptable" is not "sad", it's good. Incorrect truths shouldn't be taught.

Unless they're helpful, like the model of the atom.

[Will Wildman]

I quite like this post - while I can understand people's spiritual journeys, I don't particularly have one of my own (being an atheist who has rarely been forced to argue with anyone on theological matters), but 'the preferential option' puts to words something that I've done many times here at slacktivist (and sometimes elsewhere). There have been various times when a disagreement springs up between two people over an issue of oppression or bigotry, and I'm not always sure that, e.g., thing X is/was clearly sexist.

But when I ignore a couple of specifics and look at the whole context of the discussion, I notice that it tends to take the form of Person A saying "This seems sexist to me" and Person B saying "No it isn't and you're wrong and you're inventing sexism everywhere and it's not really that bad anyway so shut up". And, well, even if I'm not personally certain that thing X was in fact sexist, Person B needs a seeing-to. Makes things much simpler.

Censorship of the unjust as the answer to hateful speech?

Censorship is taking away someone's microphone, not telling them that they look stupid on their it's-my-right-to-be-insensitive soapbox. We'll be fine.

[Mmy]

@guest-again: Censorship of the unjust as the answer to hateful speech.
Yes, it hasn't happened here, presumably (Fred was the key element of Slacktivist, never the comments, and he didn't seem to feel much need to ensure that those responding to his work fit into a pattern), but the framework is being built,

Citations please. Data. Where is the evidence that the framework to censor is being built here?

[Raj]

Censorship of the unjust as the answer to hateful speech?

Yes, it hasn't happened here

I'm glad you acknowledge that it hasn't happened here. Until it does, let's worry about more pressing problems, such as gamma-ray bursts.

[Raj]

Oh, and guest-again? You have my promise that if anything resembling censorship begins to rear its ugly head around here, I'll be among the first to decry it. Meanwhile, ...

*goes back to worrying about probability of computer sinking through desk due to quantum stochastic ooze*

[Dav]

OMG I just google-imaged gamma-ray bursts and if the images are right, they're like double-bladed light saber thrusts through the heart of a wormhole. Which undoubtedly how we're going to treat people who don't agree with the hive mind in the near future.

[Izzy]

What Ross said, and also Will.

Also, as one of the few people who said anything like "Yeah, I'd ban Person X"...well, first of all, I don't represent the board, obviously, and second, the people I was talking about were not only consistently offensive but tended to contribute little if any actual content, and third, fuck you.

[Izzy]

Dav: I feel like that should be a metaphor for more things.

Possibly sex.

[Raj]

When, if ever, is it OK to remain neutral?

Perhaps if one doesn't have enough information to know which stance is the most ethical one? I do think, though, that in such a case, the right thing to do is to obtain as much information as possible.

[Raj]

Izzy: What Ross said, and also Will

*waves*

[Izzy]

And Raj. Sorry about that! End of the day. :)

[Raj]

*hands Izzy fluffy iguana cooky*

[Dav]

Why can I never get my comments error free? "Which *IS* undoubtedly . . ."

Sigh.

[Kit Whitfield]

'When the offenders then claim that it’s only fair that they be able to say whatever’s on their mind, or that it’s a matter of free speech, there is typically a swift and overwhelming response that demonstrates a key tenet of the preferential option.'//

Censorship of the unjust as the answer to hateful speech?

Guest-again, reread the sentence you quoted. 'A swift and overwhelming response' denotes community answers, not censorship. The only thing that gets 'censored' here is obvious spam.

As evidence, I'd like to cite the fact that recently somebody called me 'outright evil' on one of the threads because he resented me pointing out that his comments were sexist. And I'm one of the board administrators. If objectionable statements or insulting behaviour got anybody censored, you'd think that would have been a prime candidate.

Was he censored? No. Go read the 'Good Girls Tell Lies' thread: his comments are still there. Was he banned? No. Various members of the community told him what they thought of him, I declined to dignify his comments with engagement, and he stopped posting after a while on his own initiative.

This is in line with the stated policy which you can read in the FAQs: http://slacktivist.typepad.com/just_the_faqs/2011/03/frequently-asked-questions.html:

We continue the moderation policy run by Fred, which is to say that The Board Administration Team (TBAT) only removes obvious spam. In his years of running Slacktivist Fred only banned two posters, both after a long and sustained campaign of personal abuse; TBAT might one day be obliged to do the same, but it is hoped it will never come to that.

TBAT members answer questions in posts signed 'The Board Administration Team' marked out by a distinctive icon. If a member of TBAT posts under their own name, it is a statement of individual opinion rather than board policy and carries no more weight than that of any other poster.

Posts are never censored either for unpopular opinions or bad manners. The community, however, tends to take a dim view of poor logic, rude behaviour and callous attitudes, and seldom hesitates to call them out.

When we started running the board as a community blog, the subject of banning and censorship was discussed at length, and an open and public consensus against it was reached. You can look in the archives if you want to confirm this: http://slacktivist.typepad.com/slacktivist/2011/03/first-order-of-business.html:

The first major issue to settle is the question of moderation policy. From reading the comments, we get the impression that the majority wish is for moderation to be limited to removing obvious spam and threats, and for the merely offensive posts to be handled by the community as before. We propose that we try this for a while and see how it works for everyone.

So far, it has worked for everyone. It wasn't broke, so we didn't fix it.

Or, short form: your suggestion that we use censorship is factually incorrect, and if you look through the archives you will find it shown to be so.

[Semperfiona]

Mink mentions that liberation theology is condemned in the Catholic Church. What is also interesting is that I grew up in an evangelical church in the US, and it was condemned quite roundly there too, as 'too political' and 'too worldly' and 'losing sight of relationship with God' (paraphrases from decades-old memories). Already in the eighties the evangelical church declared any vestiges of communism or socialism to be unchristian.

[Nick Kiddle]

//I think it's always okay to remain neutral, in that we all have to choose our battles, I don't always speak up when I should, etc.//

This is an important point. I typically only get so far with certain arguments before I'm at risk of being completely overwhelmed by despair, and I have a hard time accepting that it's OK to walk away and let other people fight that one. It feels like I'm betraying the cause, but on the other hand I'm no good to the cause if I'm burned-out and near suicidal.

[Lila]

"Which Side Are You On?" is right up there with "Bread and Roses". Thank you!

[Izzy]

Nick: Absolutely. We all should do what we can, but we should also remember that "can" doesn't mean scraping by with teeth and toenails.

Kit: Wait, what? You're evil now? The things I miss...

Raj: Mmmm, iguana!

[kisekileia]

During the Slacktivist/The Slacktiverse split, I think I was pretty much the only one who argued for anything more than censorship of spam and perhaps occasional disemvowelling, rot13ing, or banning of extreme repeat offenders. I took that stance because, while I haven't been a regular commenter on Slacktivist/The Slacktiverse, I witnessed another forum I loved go from kind and supportive to cutthroat and nasty because the troublemakers did not respond to social pressure to change their behaviour, and eventually the supportive people left and people who would be considered trolls on here became dominant. I've been happy to see that the more socially conscious commenters here are numerous, extremely articulate, and able to debate well and thoroughly enough that they overwhelm trolls. I hope that if the balance of social power ever shifts here--i.e. there starts to be a trolling problem that isn't responsive to social pressure--The Board Administration Team won't allow trolls to overwhelm the community, but I can see that right now, the moderation via social pressure policy works.

Yes, you read that right, guest. One of the most pro-censorship people in this community acknowledges, along with pretty much everyone else here, that the status quo of no censorship is working. In other words, nobody is asking TBAT to put censorship in place now. Nobody. I hope that addresses your concerns.

[kisekileia]

Sorry, that should read: "while I haven't been a regular commenter on Slacktivist/The Slacktiverse for very long, I witnessed...."

[JessicaR]

Cross posting for a good cause. Tomato Nation has started their Spring Contest and they hope to raise 250,000 through Donor's Choose for Public Schools in need. You can help send a class on a field trip, get some much needed supplies, and more. Check 'em out, http://tinyurl.com/3hmaoca

[Mink]

Semperfiona: I find that fascinating, because one of the core doctrines of liberation theology is to build churches from the laity up, which appears to be how most forms of Protestantism have come about in the US.

The sad thing is I'm not surprised. I'm just not certain how to reverse the trend. The denominations that would ask "Why is there poverty?" and not answer "Because they did it to themselves," appear to be a vanishing minority or don't get any attention, or wither and die, in favor of what to me appears to be less Christian theology and more Mammonist.

[truth is life]

The sad thing is I'm not surprised. I'm just not certain how to reverse the trend. The denominations that would ask "Why is there poverty?" and not answer "Because they did it to themselves," appear to be a vanishing minority or don't get any attention, or wither and die, in favor of what to me appears to be less Christian theology and more Mammonist.

I misread that last bit for a moment as "Mahometan" (ie., Islamic, albeit in a very archaic and insulting form), but that leads me to wonder what non-Christians make of this problem. I cannot really venture an answer to that, but I know that we have pagan and Jewish members, at least, although I don't know if we have members of other major religions. Obviously, we have atheists too, but the answer to the question in that case would be covered by sociology or economics or something of that sort, and wouldn't be a religious problem.

[Mink]

truth is life: Ack, no, definitely not 'Mahometan!' Sorry for the confusion!

[Ben Standeven]

kisekileia:

During the Slacktivist/The Slacktiverse split, I think I was pretty much the only one who argued for anything more than censorship of spam and perhaps occasional disemvowelling, rot13ing, or banning of extreme repeat offenders. I took that stance because, while I haven't been a regular commenter on Slacktivist/The Slacktiverse, I witnessed another forum I loved go from kind and supportive to cutthroat and nasty because the troublemakers did not respond to social pressure to change their behaviour, and eventually the supportive people left and people who would be considered trolls on here became dominant.

I thought almost the same thing. Only in my case, the "another forum" was Slacktivist itself! So I figured, if the rest of the board is okay with an uncensored board, there's no sense in my ruining it for everyone else- I could simply leave. But amazingly enough, all the flame wars and troublemakers seem to have moved to the Patheos site, so there was no need for me to leave.

Well, almost all of the flame wars and troublemakers:

Ross:

@thrfg-ntnva: Lbh frrz gb unir zvffrq n xrl cbvag, juvpu erfhygrq va lbhe znxvat gur Hfhny Cevivyrtr-Qrsraqre'f Ohyyfuvg Cbvag: Ab. Bar. Vf. Shpxvat. Gnxvat. Njnl. Lbhe. Serrqbz. Bs. Fcrrpu.

Lbh*'er fgvyy whfg nf serr nf lbh rire jrer gb cbfg ivyr, qruhznavmvat, cevivyvtr-sybhapvat, ungrshy fperrqf. Ab bar'f fgbccvat lbh. Ab bar'f erqnpgvat lbh. Ab bar'f qryrgvat lbh.

Naq *zl* serr fcrrpu zrnaf gung V trg gb gryy lbh* rknpgyl juvpu bevsnpr lbh pna vagebqhpr lbhe fcrrpu gb.

Nebhaq gurfr cnegf, jr qba'g qrny jvgu crbcyr cbfgvat uhegshy guvatf ol gnxvat njnl gurve serrqbz bs fcrrpu.

Jr qrny jvgu vg ol hfvat _bhef_.

Please don't use violent language and imagery without warnings.

[radiant_enigma]

While the RCC does condemn liberation theology, they endorse the concept of preferential treatment for the poor. Even when they were releasing their official criticism of the LT movement, they made a point of saying that no one could be neutral in the face of injustice and specifically condemned the crimes of colonialism and the scandal of the arms race. Their problem was that they say the LT movement as reducing the Biblical message to a solely political one (quote): "The mistake here is not in bringing attention to a political dimension of the readings of Scripture, but in making of this one dimension the principal or exclusive component."

I don't know nearly enough about liberation theology or the debate about it from within the Catholic Church to be able to comment about the rightness (or lack thereof) of the criticisms they made, but it's important to realize that they were NOT condemning a reading of the Bible that endorsed social justice; they were just trying to ensure that the spiritual, religious dimension wasn't lost or overshadowed by that reading.

[radiant_enigma]

Sorry, I meant to write "Their problem was that they SAW the LT movement..."

[victoria]

@ radiant_enigma,

You're correct in noting that while liberation theology was roundly criticized by the Vatican, there is much of it that has found its way into the official teaching (and much of it that was already a part of official teaching, just not with the label of "liberation theology").

I think a lot of the problems that faced liberation theology in the 1980s-1990s had to do with John Paul II's skewed understanding of it based on his experience of Soviet style communism in his native Poland. He was quick to dismiss any use of Marxist analysis as problematic, and so when, for example, the bishops of Latin America used Marxist terminology to denounce economic inequality, JPII made the mistake of assuming they were promoting a political agenda that was similar to the repressive Soviet system.

I think another reason why liberation theology was considered dangerous was that it helped form a stronger case for those who are marginalized *within* the Church. A lot of contemporary feminist and queer theology has drawn from a liberation methodology, and Rome is definitely not ready for a preferential option for women or QUILTBAG persons.

[Kogo]

*Does the preferential option resonate with you?*

No. Wouldn't we live in a much, much better world than this if god actually existed and/or had a preference for the poor? Seems like the poor wouldn't be poor then. Horrible right-wing dominance and/or natural disastrous shit wouldn't happen: God would stop it from happening. Instead of just consoling ourselves with wan promises that god loves us, we'd actually have some EVIDENCE by virtue of him actually fucking HELPING us when we needed him.

[radiant_enigma]

@victoria

I've loved the idea of liberation theology since I was first introduced to it a few years ago, but I haven't learned nearly as much about it as I'd like. Your ideas about it (and why the Vatican/JPII rejected it) make a lot of sense. Thanks for your post and your comments - they're insightful, well-written, and on a great topic!

[Ruby]

Ben: Well, almost all of the flame wars and troublemakers:

...

Please don't use violent language and imagery without warnings.

And please don't go around calling people troublemakers and flame-war-starters when they are defending the community and mods here from unfounded, passive-aggressive insults.

[Deird, who has different ideas to you]

Horrible right-wing dominance and/or natural disastrous shit wouldn't happen: God would stop it from happening.

Because clearly, if God wanted something he would just reprogram the world and make it be so.

Or then again, possibly not.

[MercuryBlue]

Huh, so that's what liberation theology means. I'd heard of it, in the context of "Teal'c gets liberation theology", and not felt the need to explore the concept.

[chris the cynic]

Because clearly, if God wanted something he would just reprogram the world and make it be so.

Or then again, possibly not.

If I ever get around to writing up my thoughts on god, I think it likely that you and I will find we have significant agreement on the reasons for (the continued existence of) the problem of evil.

[Kogo]

*Because clearly, if God wanted something he would just reprogram the world and make it be so.
Or then again, possibly not.*

So . . . punchline? I am not impressed or enlightened by these words you have typed. I'm like 1/3 insulted, 2/3 confused. Whatever the clever little joke or truth or whatever it is you are winking at is, let's pretend I am deathly thick and need you to spell it out for me.

So: why does a god who loves X, Y and Z group of people and/or collection of virtues not , Y'know, ACT to help them? He has supposedly saved people in fires and lions dens and rendered a good bit of divine firepower in the service of conquering the holy land.

So why will he now NOT strike Governor Scott Walker dead and/or veto that horrible anti-woman abortion law in South Dakota?

[Izzy]

Y'know, I personally have no desire to explain my faith to someone who rudely demands to have it spelled out for him.

I mean, I'm not Deird or the OP. If they're nice enough to actually try explaining the problem of evil to an Internet person with an agenda, well, go them. But if it were me?

let's pretend I am deathly thick and need you to spell it out for me

Let's pretend I don't give a fuck what you believe, or not, and that you can do your own damn homework.

Going to bed now; resuming flame war later, if it happens.

[Deird, who thinks it's more complicated]

So why will he now NOT strike Governor Scott Walker dead and/or veto that horrible anti-woman abortion law in South Dakota?

Because we are not robots, and this is not a still-life painting.

[Deird, who needs chocolate]

Also, what Izzy said.

Anyone who is going to blithely categorise my faith as "consoling ourselves with wan promises that god loves us" isn't someone I feel like being polite to.

[Mary Kaye]

What kind of goodness would be possible in a world where the gods struck dead every person who committed an act of evil? I think there would be only fear and sullen obedience: no virtue, no beauty, and in the end no love.

What kind of person do you get if you take an individual and remove from her all consequences of her actions, so that it does not matter if she does good or evil? Evidence is, you end up with a caricature of full humanity.

My own faith--I am not a Christian so my answers will not be theirs--is that there is value in being human, and you cannot make humans in a world without evil. You could make something else, but it would never become us. (It helps that I don't believe in omnipotence.)

In my most arrogant moments I note that I cannot create a world worth writing about without including evil in it: perhaps the gods can't make a world worth creating without including evil in it.

[victoria]

@ Kogo,

You're bringing up some major questions of theodicy, and these kinds of questions of "why bad things happen to good people" are absolutely valid and worthwhile questions to wrestle with. However, i get the impression that you are unwilling to do any further research or reflection on the matter, as you have already vehemently made clear your personal stance on the matter. it's hard to want to engage in dialogue with someone who seems to already have made up hir mind.

[Matt Doyle]

Liberation Theology is one of the primary things that has helped to keep me a Christian, or at least, that has convinced me that my personal Christian faith and the Christian faith community in general can still interface with one another. Reading James H. Cone's Black Theology and Black Power and its articulation that the social and historical context of theology makes a difference is what made me believe that Christianity was still *relevant.*

[julie paradox]

I'm glad this post and this discussion are here.

...but I still don't see why it's "the preferential option"

This may seem petty, but I don't think I'm going to remember the term if I don't understand the etymology. It's not an explanatory phrase and it has no resonance; so while I like the idea (I think... see, I still don't have it straight) I don't yet like those words to describe it.

Feel free to ignore if this shows signs of derailing ;-)