Add new comment

Martha, you are of course illustrating my point. The people commenting on this show are more polarized and more certain of their views than the faith community as a whole, and are not about to really listen to anyone else's views about this.

And why should they? This show doesn't fundamentally challenge their certainty about this or give them good reason to listen; rather it mainly reinforces the certainty and projects its own lack of openness. That is, the openness is to allowing the Other side to change, a very limited openness. "Let's be open to them getting that speck out of their eye eventually" seems to be the attitude. Ms. Tippett's post above is practically an apology for even talking to Mouw. This isn't the openness expected of the Other. And to those less liberal than Mouw there is even less openness, and something quite other than love.

One price for this is a largely polarized audience that leaves out a large portion of the faith community. It also prevents the audience from understanding its own views as well as it should, due to lack of questioning and opposed ideas.

To clarify one reason there should be more openness on both sides instead of only the Other side, as a spiritual matter it cannot be inferred from the APA or nature or anything else that purports to be objectively settled that homosexuality isn't contrary to God's ultimate purposes for creation. That's a theological question, a faith issue, not a purely scientific one. You may object to such issues on general grounds, but this show is all about stuff that science only enters into partially. I see no evidence that Mouw rejects any finding of science.

As for what you say about how atheists view this show, that doesn't conflict with anything I said about the show reaching out to atheists.