Mark D. Roberts

Mark D. Roberts


Opposing Views: An Intriguing New Website

posted by Mark D. Roberts

I’ve recently become aware of a new website called Opposing Views. The headline of this site identifies it as in Beta mode, so I assume it’s very much a work in progress.
The main point of Opposing Views is . . . to present opposing views on a variety of contemporary issues, including: gun laws, condom distribution, U.S. foreign policy, child discipline, the power of prayer to heal, bottled water, the existence of God, same-sex marriage, and many more. Their major categories are: Politics, Society, Health, Money, and Religion. Under these categories they include a wide range of subjects.

Opposing Views gathers “Verified Experts” who weigh in on opposite sides of issues. They are required to express themselves in a civil manner. (See their page, “Civility 101″.) Readers are invited to add comments, who are also expected to adhere to the values of “Civility 101.”
The people producing Opposing Views are identified on the website.  I recognize a couple of their names, but am not familiar with them. I do recognize many of the organizations or individuals that have been identified as experts, including: Amnesty International, John Piper, Baptist Press, American Atheists, Focus on the Family, AFL-CIO,  the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Rights, and the National Right to Life Committee. As near as I can tell, the experts represent a genuine diversity of opinion on major issues, are are people who are articulate spokespersons for their cause.
Of course, being the suspicious person that I am, I wonder if Opposing Views has some sort of agenda besides facilitating authentic conversation about issues. If, for example, they utilized strong experts on one side of an issue and weak experts on the other side, then this would show some sort of bias. But I haven’t seen anything like this so far. In fact, I’ve been impressed by what seems to a balanced collection of voices.
I suppose a potential danger in Opposing Views approach is that it might over-emphasize differences on certain issues. In my experience, sometimes the people on the poles of an issue are less insightful than those who are more toward the center. I don’t know if Opposing Views will allow for moderate voices outside of the comments.
Nevertheless, I am impressed with the stated objectives of Opposing Views and with what they have managed to produce so far. I believe we desperately need places in our world today where people of differing opinions can discuss and disagree with intelligence, candor, and civility. It seems like Opposing Views seeks to be this sort of place. More power to them! I hope they succeed. And, needless to say at this point, I recommend that you check out this website. And if you’re able to give some feedback in my comments, that would be great.



  • http://stonescryout.org/?p=1711 Stones Cry Out – If they keep silent…? Things Heard: e64v5

  • Peter

    I think this new website may provide a wonderful service: intelligent discourse without stated utterances of contempt and hatred for people who dare to think differently. Any regular increase in civility is a big step forward: towards a “we” or an “us” instead of “they” and “them” awareness. This change has the opportunity to shift problem solving from a coercive mode to one of cooperation. “What are we going to do about this?” is a very different question from “what are you going to do?” with the often veiled threat of a consequence for a failure to either not act or to make a choice unacceptable to the person asking the question/demand.

  • http://www.markgalli.com/galliblog Mark Galli

    Mark, thanks for this lead. We’re hoping to do something like this in CT.

  • J Falconer

    Rev. Roberts & Readers, Thanks for the tip on this website. Every person & issue can be viewed, analyzed & discussed in 2 or more formats-current issues & relevancy, conflicts & problems resolved, social problems & agendas-government, education, business, financial institutions, etc. Hopefully, scripture can be applied to some of the modern day situations & concerns. Alas, everyone’s feelings & thought processes will be unique. Individuality & the establishement is an interesting mix!! Thanks for everyone’s recent posts. Again, have a great week end & week ahead & Blessings!! People need encouragement & miracles for the present days & times we’re in. Love & prayers J & family

  • http://www.opposingviews.com Russell Fine

    Thank you for stopping by Opposing Views and writing about us… we really appreciate it. In answer to your question — no, we don’t have an agenda. Well, that’s not completely accurate… our agenda is to provide an open platform for ALL sides of the truth to be expressed. Groups or people that meet our editorial standards as an expert with any perspective aren’t just allowed to voice their opinion… we actively seek them out. Please let me know if you would like to suggest a topic, expert, or anything. We’re still in Beta, always adding features, and it really helps to receive feedback.
    Thanks again for sharing us with your readers.
    Russell Fine
    Founder and CEO
    Opposing Views

  • Todd Bartel

    One of the best things to come out of NPR is a program called “Intelligence Squared”. They get four experts on each side of an issue like “Is Aid to Africa Doing More Harm than Good?”. It started in 2006 and have about two dozen audio debates to download. Funny thing is they used to have a debate called “Is America Too Religious?” that is missing from their lineup. Glad to see other groups having civil discourse on subjects of the day. I think more people are getting tired of the obvious spinning done by both sides of the political spectrum.

Previous Posts

More blogs to enjoy!!!
Thank you for visiting Mark D. Roberts. This blog is no longer being updated. Please enjoy the archives. Here are some other blogs you may also enjoy: Red Letters with Tom Davis Recent prayer post on Prayables Most Recent Inspiration blog post Happy Reading!  

posted 2:09:11pm Aug. 27, 2012 | read full post »

Why Did Jesus Have to Die? Conclusions
In this series on the death of Jesus, I have presented four different perspectives on why Jesus had to die: Roman, Jewish, Jesus’, and Early Christian. I believe that each of these points of view has merit, and that we cannot fully understand the necessity of Jesus’ death without taking them all

posted 2:47:39am Apr. 11, 2011 | read full post »

Sunday Inspiration from the High Calling
Can We Find God in the City? Psalm 48:1-14 Go, inspect the city of Jerusalem. Walk around and count the many towers. Take note of the fortified walls, and tour all the citadels, that you may describe them to future generations. For that is what God is like. He is our God forever and ever,

posted 2:05:51am Apr. 10, 2011 | read full post »

Why Did Jesus Have to Die? The Perspective of the First Christians, Part 3
An Act and Symbol of Love Perhaps one of the most startling of the early Christian interpretations of the cross was that it was all about love. It’s easy in our day, when crosses are religious symbols, attractive ornaments, and trendy jewelry to associate the cross with love. But, in the first

posted 2:41:47am Apr. 08, 2011 | read full post »

Why Did Jesus Have to Die? The Perspective of the First Christians, Part 2
The Means of Reconciliation In my last post, I examined one of the very earliest Christian statements of the purpose of Jesus’ death. According to the tradition encapsulated in 1 Corinthians 15, Jesus died “for our sins in accordance with the scriptures” (15:3). Yet this text doesn’t expl

posted 2:30:03am Apr. 07, 2011 | read full post »




Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.