There has been a great deal of play given to alleged direct or indirect censorship of belief/spiritual/metaphysical subjects. Yet no diary or comment has been directly censored, and accusations of indirect censorship boil down to pointing to responses made by users of a more skeptical frame of mind. Denying them the right to question or oppose "spiritual" points of view would amount to inverse censorship, which would, as you say elsewhere, indeed be "a paradox".
And how many "skeptical" diaries have been written? Who, among the less inclined to believe among us, has posted material likely to cause grave dissension? I refrain from writing on this, (though I have clear views grounded in my own experience and, indeed, suffering), because I'm aware that it's an utterly divisive subject. I think others steer clear for similar reasons - yet the noise about censorship runs one way and one way only.
There's also the manner that should be considered: I titled a diary "American Pie Fight", which appeared to be asking for trouble, but I really did think it was possible to bridge some gaps and reach better understanding between Europeans and Americans, and I wrote quite deliberately in hopes we'd find common ground. That may not be possible in the "spiritual/skeptical" frame, in which case it's probably an area that's better avoided.
Systemic failure? Take any similar group, and you would probably find a similar "belief gap". Few of us here find close confirmation of personal identity in ethnic or national roots - apparently the belief/disbelief mythology we find ourselves suited to is more radically necessary to our sense of ourselves.
For that reason, it probably can't be hashed out, argued over. What we need is to encapsulate it in pacified mode, that is, recognize the differences between us without hating each other for them.
However there is a human context to all the talk about energy, politics, finance etc. It is a context of perceptions. Unless we seek to understand those perceptions we cannot hope to change the ones that are different from the ones we all at ET seem to agree upon. i.e. the things that need to be changed to make a better society.
All the careful science and logic will not change entrenched perceptions unless they are communicated to wider audiences in 'their' terms. I don't say you are unaware of the problem of communication - you are a writer yourself - but 'spreading the word' is not just about being right.
About beliefs: the EU is secular. No mention of religion anywhere in the treaties. ET is rightly secular. And yet both the EU and ET are, to some extent, belief systems as perceived by citizens.
I don't hate anyone. I abhor violence. But it is hard to prevent carrots being seen as sticks due to different perceptions. And unless we can discuss those perceptions, I don't see a solution.
BTW As DoDo points out, there is an uncomfortable circle of recriminations about who said or did what first, and it reminds me of the intractable Israeli/Palestinan conflict. Let us offer each other an olive branch and try to move on. There are numerous projects on which we could collaborate if we can move forward beyond words. You can't be me, I'm taken
All the careful science and logic will not change entrenched perceptions unless they are communicated to wider audiences in 'their' terms.
How do you think this thread is helping ET communicate with a wider audience?
Well... yes. But while you poked afew and Colman, melo got in the way, and in the end, he ended up doing just what was the subject of afew's prior intervention. For the future, worth to note: when you use carrots disguised as sticks that some will have to see as sticks disguised as carrots, third parties may get confused, too. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
