From: Jonathan Davis (jonathan.davis@lineone.net)
Date: Tue Oct 07 2003 - 11:55:53 MDT
Inspired by Hermit's appeal for clarity from Elvensage, I have assembled my
own set of questions about the document and the propositions it makes:
Given the purpose of Disciplinary actions is "to maintain public
credibility of the Church of Virus. Disciplinary actions' primary purpose is
to protect the Church of Virus from disrepute", can it be made clear what
constitutes "public credibility" and "disrepute"?
I notice the preamble seeks to exclude "people who are at open variance with
the Body, either in principle or practice" because their presence "makes it
difficult or impossible to maintain order and civility in our
deliberations." Can this line of reasoning be please be supported? Who will
be judging what the Body "is" so that we may determine those who are "at
variance"? What about existing members who vary from the Body in "principle
and practice"? Will it be a case that even if they are accepted within the
"community of the willing" they will be automatically excluded because of
arbitrarily defines transgressions? Does this not perhaps risk persecution
of minority dissenters and *alleged* apostates? Does the Body represent
dogma or fixed attitudes, principles, beliefs or political affiliations?
Who are the "we" as in "we emphasise that disciplinary actions are only
undertaken by the community"? Who sets out who will be "acting for the
community" and where can we I find clear descriptions of what "protect[ing]
the community, its name, its reputation, its goals, its members and our
principles" involves? Are there definitions of what constitutes violating
the community's good name? Who decides if our goals or principles have been
injured?
What does "manifesting disunity with the Church of Virus" mean? Who judges
this? Who decides what constitutes "inconsistent or disorderly conduct"? Why
is "creation of dissension in the community" a problem where free thinking
and free speaking are implied virtues as rationalists?
Do we have clear definitions or at least examples of "principles and
practices contrary to the "Virian Virtues" and "Senseless Sins""? Can these
be objectively tested?
What are "the necessary rules of our community"?
Is this whole thing based on the Mormon principle of disfellowship and is it
worthwhile discussing the problems encountered with their similar system?
What is a "wrong action"? Who are the "Virian Council"? Will all votes and
minutes be made public in the case of a disownment? How will the Arch Vector
be appointed?
Enough for now.
Kind regards
Jonathan
P.S Regarding Elvensage's claims, I also think there is a general sense of
unease about these proposals. I also think that there is confusion over what
is "in" and what is "out" in terms of specific acceptable behaviours. I
think the document is too vague and I agree that as these procedures
proposes censure, which is a tool of manipulation and control, they may be
(ab)used to silence dissent, minority opinions or perceived heresies
(regardless of rational merit) that are bannered under arbitrarily defined
labels such as "disorderly conduct", "creation of dissention", "wrong
actions" or "bringing the CoV into disrepute".
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-virus@lucifer.com [mailto:owner-virus@lucifer.com] On Behalf Of
Hermit
Sent: 07 October 2003 14:28
To: virus@lucifer.com
Subject: virus: Re:The Disciplinary Process of the Church of Virus
Elvensage stated (without supporting why):
1 The main problem I have with the system is that I do not think it is a
system that the majority of the CoV really agrees on when it comes down to
it.
2 I think that our definition of what is unwanted is all different,
3 yet I think that what a few see as "unwanted" is what is going to become
censored.
SNIP
--- To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Oct 07 2003 - 11:56:21 MDT