Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Door-step Proseletizing

1911131415

Posts

  • SipexSipex Registered User
    edited September 2010
    Oh yeah, there's a lot about the religion I don't like, I just don't advocate judging their members for anything more than the ideas they actively support.

    Also, interesting topic on them, do you know they baptise themselves in the name of people who have died and not gotten baptised? Usually they stick to family (ie: Baptising yourself in the name of ancestors) but if no family can be found a priest will stand in place.

    How bad is that? I understand their intentions are good but it's a gross invasion of freedom of religion.

    Sure, the person is dead but you didn't ask them if they wanted to be a baptised mormon.

    But since there's no body it's really, grey.

    Horseshoe wrote:
    I've got good news and bad news about 6th level, That Guy. The good news is that Forbiddance spell allows you to prevent enemies different alignment from entering a consecrated area, which is actually useful! The bad news is that the only other new sixth level spell makes lunch for everybody. Guess which one the party is going to expect you to cast.
  • JakarrdJakarrd In the belly of OklahomaRegistered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Ganluan wrote: »
    That and the whole "church contributed directly to Prop 8" thing (yes I know they encouraged members to donate and vote against it, but did the church contribute directly? Wouldn't that be a violation of non-profit rules?)

    I dunno, the church was fined over 5k USD for failing to properly report about $37,000 in contributions on behalf of the successful effort to pass Proposition 8.

    CBS news has a report here but you can search for another references if you prefer:
    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20007269-503544.html

    So wouldn't that suggest the church directly contributed to Prop 8?

    Greetings Starfighter! You have been recruited by the Star League to defend the frontier against Xur and the Ko-Dan Armada.

    76561197990097905.png
  • DarkCrawlerDarkCrawler Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Sipex wrote: »
    Oh yeah, there's a lot about the religion I don't like, I just don't advocate judging their members for anything more than the ideas they actively support.

    Also, interesting topic on them, do you know they baptise themselves in the name of people who have died and not gotten baptised? Usually they stick to family (ie: Baptising yourself in the name of ancestors) but if no family can be found a priest will stand in place.

    How bad is that? I understand their intentions are good but it's a gross invasion of freedom of religion.

    Sure, the person is dead but you didn't ask them if they wanted to be a baptised mormon.

    But since there's no body it's really, grey.

    It's just another obnoxious and offensive thing that Mormons tend to do. Worse then the door-to-door shit, but not exactly something I would muster too much anger over, since ultimately it means nothing.

  • KalTorakKalTorak Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Yeah, I remember being instinctively pissed off about their plans to retroactively baptise the Jews who died in the Holocaust.

    Then I reminded myself "wait, baptism is a load of fake bullshit. It literally does nothing, especially when the people are dead. This is just Mormons jerking themselves off."

  • SipexSipex Registered User
    edited September 2010
    For those in a religion I would say it's worse though because they believe in baptism and sacred rites. Suddenly you're a Mormon. You didn't choose to be a Mormon but some database somewhere has you marked as one. Weren't you supposed to be Jewish?

    Horseshoe wrote:
    I've got good news and bad news about 6th level, That Guy. The good news is that Forbiddance spell allows you to prevent enemies different alignment from entering a consecrated area, which is actually useful! The bad news is that the only other new sixth level spell makes lunch for everybody. Guess which one the party is going to expect you to cast.
  • Atlas in ChainsAtlas in Chains Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Corehealer wrote: »
    Even under the threat of persecution, which probably does not apply to this situation, you can also leave the group if you don't agree with it. Choosing not to automatically means you have no issue/problem with what they are doing.

    Not leaving a Christian denomination even though it is against gay equality is wrong, because there is no moral base for rejecting gay equality.

    Unless there really is a god and he really doesn't want people to be gay. We don't operate under that fantasy, but these people do. Hence, they are not bad, but delusional.

  • KalTorakKalTorak Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Sipex wrote: »
    For those in a religion I would say it's worse though because they believe in baptism and sacred rites. Suddenly you're a Mormon. You didn't choose to be a Mormon but some database somewhere has you marked as one. Weren't you supposed to be Jewish?

    Yeah, that's what irked me. But (and I could be wrong), do Mormon rites mean anything to a devout Jewish person? I'm guessing not. If someone decides to do a long-distance baptism on me right now and "make" me a born-again Christian against my will, what effect does it actually have? None.

    edit: or to go further afield, let's say there's some shamanistic tribe that does a ritual to "convert" everybody else in the world. Heck, we could all be on like half a dozen books of religion right now and not even notice.

  • Edith_Bagot-DixEdith_Bagot-Dix Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Ganluan wrote: »
    OK seriously, does someone have something proving this "excommunicate without tithe" thing? Everyone keeps saying it but no one will provide some kind of citation that this is current doctrine for that church.

    That and the whole "church contributed directly to Prop 8" thing (yes I know they encouraged members to donate and vote against it, but did the church contribute directly? Wouldn't that be a violation of non-profit rules?)

    Not sure where all the mentions of excommunication are, but my understanding is that it doesn't work like that. From what I understand (not LDS myself), you need a document called a "temple recommend" to fully participate in Mormon religious activities. These are obtained from the Bishop of one's area. Part of the process of getting one involves an annual "Tithing Settlement" where the Bishop reviews a member's finances to determine whether they are a "fully tithed member" and asks them to settle up if this audit reveals that they have contributed less than the required amount.

    steam_sig.png

    Also on PSN: twobadcats
  • DarkCrawlerDarkCrawler Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    KalTorak wrote: »
    Sipex wrote: »
    For those in a religion I would say it's worse though because they believe in baptism and sacred rites. Suddenly you're a Mormon. You didn't choose to be a Mormon but some database somewhere has you marked as one. Weren't you supposed to be Jewish?

    Yeah, that's what irked me. But (and I could be wrong), do Mormon rites mean anything to a devout Jewish person? I'm guessing not. If someone decides to do a long-distance baptism on me right now and "make" me a born-again Christian against my will, what effect does it actually have? None.

    edit: or to go further afield, let's say there's some shamanistic tribe that does a ritual to "convert" everybody else in the world. Heck, we could all be on like half a dozen books of religion right now and not even notice.

    by posting on this thread, you have all been baptized in the religion I just invented

    mwahahaha

  • CorehealerCorehealer The Apothecary When has it ever been any different?Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    by posting on this thread, you have all been baptized in the religion I just invented

    mwahahaha

    Needs more Cthulhu.

    2fbfH5V.png
  • WinklebottomWinklebottom Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Fun Fact, apparently someone with access looked up who they've dead dunked, and the list includes Dr. Mengele and Mary (of the virgin birth fame).

    https://new.familysearch.org/en/action/unsec/welcome is the website that they got the info from.

  • NuckerNucker Registered User
    edited September 2010
    Corehealer wrote: »
    Even under the threat of persecution, which probably does not apply to this situation, you can also leave the group if you don't agree with it. Choosing not to automatically means you have no issue/problem with what they are doing.

    Not leaving a Christian denomination even though it is against gay equality is wrong, because there is no moral base for rejecting gay equality.

    If this is serious reasoning...just, wow. This statement condemns every conceivable social group, from families to peers to employers. Your friends doing something that violates some moral code? Still here? That means you condone it. Told your friends it was wrong? Asked them to stop? Tried to offer productive alternatives? Sorry, you still condone it and should be equally condemned. Your prior friendship be damned, if you still hang around those people then you are as guilty as they are.

  • sidhaethesidhaethe Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Nucker wrote: »
    Corehealer wrote: »
    Even under the threat of persecution, which probably does not apply to this situation, you can also leave the group if you don't agree with it. Choosing not to automatically means you have no issue/problem with what they are doing.

    Not leaving a Christian denomination even though it is against gay equality is wrong, because there is no moral base for rejecting gay equality.

    If this is serious reasoning...just, wow. This statement condemns every conceivable social group, from families to peers to employers. Your friends doing something that violates some moral code? Still here? That means you condone it. Told your friends it was wrong? Asked them to stop? Tried to offer productive alternatives? Sorry, you still condone it and should be equally condemned. Your prior friendship be damned, if you still hang around those people then you are as guilty as they are.

    Not to put too fine a point on it, but... yeah, if your friends are known bigots and you continue to hang out with them, expect to be considered a bigot, too, because uh... you don't have to tolerate bigotry and associate with bigots?

    I have racist family members and, while they are still family, I do distance myself from them, because... they're racist. Not sure what's controversial about that.

    "Hey, my friend here refers to black as n-words and considers race-mixing bestiality, but he shoots a mean game of pool, so." D:

  • h3nduh3ndu Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    I'm LDS.

    I have no intent to discuss the doctrine of my church here; as it goes I beleive in it - I understand that other people don't and that serves me just fine. I myself served a full time mission in Frankfurt Germany, I did door to door Proseletizing every day for two years. I avoided people who didn't want it, I taught those who did. As to what was stated earlier in the thread about never seeing a convert from a mission - I ended up baptizing 11 people, and know several who baptized many (ranging between 20 to a 100) in other countries. Whether or not they stayed active and were actually baptized in good faith in the church is another question.

    I want to ask, quickly, why everyone seems to think our church encourages blind faith? Of almost all other churches I know, ours seems to do a pretty good job of encouraging study and development of knowledge, both scripturally and worldy. What gives with this idea?

    Edit - and no you can't be excommunicated for not paying tithing. You just can't go to the temple if you're not paying your tithes.

    Lo Que Sea, Cuando Sea, Donde Sea.
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    I want to ask, quickly, why everyone seems to think our church encourages blind faith? Of almost all other churches I know, ours seems to do a pretty good job of encouraging study and development of knowledge, both scripturally and worldy. What gives with this idea?
    For one, people will realize that at least large chunks of it are complete BS on the part of the founder after a quick wikipedia search.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Abraham

    Or maybe it is the excommunication of people who disagree with the hierarchy.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_Six

    Or maybe it is because Brigham Young University limits academic freedom in the name of religion.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_freedom_at_Brigham_Young_University

    Or maybe it is the fact they have a committee whose members "monitor the publications of church members for possible criticism of local and general leaders of the church."
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strengthening_Church_Members_Committee

  • emnmnmeemnmnme Heard about this on conservative radio:Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
  • WinklebottomWinklebottom Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    h3ndu wrote: »
    I'm LDS.

    I have no intent to discuss the doctrine of my church here; as it goes I beleive in it - I understand that other people don't and that serves me just fine. I myself served a full time mission in Frankfurt Germany, I did door to door Proseletizing every day for two years. I avoided people who didn't want it, I taught those who did. As to what was stated earlier in the thread about never seeing a convert from a mission - I ended up baptizing 11 people, and know several who baptized many (ranging between 20 to a 100) in other countries. Whether or not they stayed active and were actually baptized in good faith in the church is another question.

    I want to ask, quickly, why everyone seems to think our church encourages blind faith? Of almost all other churches I know, ours seems to do a pretty good job of encouraging study and development of knowledge, both scripturally and worldy. What gives with this idea?

    Edit - and no you can't be excommunicated for not paying tithing. You just can't go to the temple if you're not paying your tithes.

    Talk from Boyd K Packer at BYU...
    "Church history can be so interesting and so inspiring as to be a powerful tool indeed for building faith. If not properly written or properly taught, it may be a faith destroyer…

    "There is a temptation for the writer or the teacher of Church history to want to tell everything, whether it is worthy or faith promoting or not. Some things that are true are not very useful…

    "The writer or teacher who has an exaggerated loyalty to the theory that everything must be told is laying a foundation for his own judgment...The Lord made it clear that some things are to be taught selectively and some things are to be given only to those who are worthy…

    "That historian or scholar who delights in pointing out the weaknesses and frailties of present or past leaders destroys faith. A destroyer of faith - particularly one within the Church, and more particularly one who is employed specifically to build faith - places himself in great spiritual jeopardy. He is serving the wrong master, and unless he repents, he will not be among the faithful in the eternities…Do not spread disease germs!" (Boyd K. Packer, 1981, BYU Studies, Vol. 21, No. 3, pp. 259-271)

    For those not familiar with Boyd K. Packer, he is a high-up leader in the Mormon church.

  • Regina FongRegina Fong Allons-y, Alonso Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    h3ndu wrote: »
    I'm LDS.

    I have no intent to discuss the doctrine of my church here; as it goes I beleive in it - I understand that other people don't and that serves me just fine. I myself served a full time mission in Frankfurt Germany, I did door to door Proseletizing every day for two years. I avoided people who didn't want it, I taught those who did. As to what was stated earlier in the thread about never seeing a convert from a mission - I ended up baptizing 11 people, and know several who baptized many (ranging between 20 to a 100) in other countries. Whether or not they stayed active and were actually baptized in good faith in the church is another question.

    I want to ask, quickly, why everyone seems to think our church encourages blind faith? Of almost all other churches I know, ours seems to do a pretty good job of encouraging study and development of knowledge, both scripturally and worldy. What gives with this idea?

    Edit - and no you can't be excommunicated for not paying tithing. You just can't go to the temple if you're not paying your tithes.

    From what I've learned from speaking to Mormons the excommunications stem from people who have doctrinal differences, opinions which run counter to church teachings and choose to express them. So while the church encourages its members to learn all they can about it, they don't brook dissent.

    This runs counter to Catholicism, in which a lay member can have whatever opinions they like, and express them quite openly and freely and never get in trouble. Priests can get excommunicated for this, but even then its rare, many Catholic priests are very outspoken about opinions that run contrary to church law, you have to be extremely persistent and loud to get into trouble.

  • oldsakoldsak Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    h3ndu wrote: »
    I want to ask, quickly, why everyone seems to think our church encourages blind faith? Of almost all other churches I know, ours seems to do a pretty good job of encouraging study and development of knowledge, both scripturally and worldy. What gives with this idea?

    Well.. most religions encourage blind faith, it's not unique to the LDS.

    I think why people tend to pick on the LDS is that to the rest of us, your founder seems to have clearly been a con artist.

    Not to say that other religious leaders aren't con artists, but your religion is younger so we have access to better records surrounding your founding, so it's more obvious.

  • RiemannLivesRiemannLives Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    oldsak wrote: »
    h3ndu wrote: »
    I want to ask, quickly, why everyone seems to think our church encourages blind faith? Of almost all other churches I know, ours seems to do a pretty good job of encouraging study and development of knowledge, both scripturally and worldy. What gives with this idea?

    Well.. most religions encourage blind faith, it's not unique to the LDS.

    I think why people tend to pick on the LDS is that to the rest of us, your founder seems to have clearly been a con artist.

    Not to say that other religious leaders aren't con artists, but your religion is younger so we have access to better records surrounding your founding, so it's more obvious.

    Pretty much this yes.

    Given another 1000 years even L. Ron Hubbard will become respectable.

  • oldsakoldsak Registered User regular
    edited September 2010

    This runs counter to Catholicism, in which a lay member can have whatever opinions they like, and express them quite openly and freely and never get in trouble. Priests can get excommunicated for this, but even then its rare, many Catholic priests are very outspoken about opinions that run contrary to church law, you have to be extremely persistent and loud to get into trouble.

    Well technically a lay Catholic can't have whatever beliefs he likes. He is required to accept any dogmatic teachings of the church.

    No, he won't be excommunicated, but it's definitely not the position of the Church that the laity can believe whatever they want.

    Edit: nevermind, apparently the Church will excommunicate you.

  • Regina FongRegina Fong Allons-y, Alonso Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    oldsak wrote: »

    This runs counter to Catholicism, in which a lay member can have whatever opinions they like, and express them quite openly and freely and never get in trouble. Priests can get excommunicated for this, but even then its rare, many Catholic priests are very outspoken about opinions that run contrary to church law, you have to be extremely persistent and loud to get into trouble.

    Well technically a lay Catholic can't have whatever beliefs he likes. He is required to accept any dogmatic teachings of the church.

    No, he won't be excommunicated, but it's definitely not the position of the Church that the laity can believe whatever they want.

    What the church says it will tolerate and what it actually tolerates is a non-trivial distinction.

  • LoserForHireXLoserForHireX Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    oldsak wrote: »

    This runs counter to Catholicism, in which a lay member can have whatever opinions they like, and express them quite openly and freely and never get in trouble. Priests can get excommunicated for this, but even then its rare, many Catholic priests are very outspoken about opinions that run contrary to church law, you have to be extremely persistent and loud to get into trouble.

    Well technically a lay Catholic can't have whatever beliefs he likes. He is required to accept any dogmatic teachings of the church.

    No, he won't be excommunicated, but it's definitely not the position of the Church that the laity can believe whatever they want.

    Except they do

    "The only way to get rid of a temptation is to give into it." - Oscar Wilde
    "We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
  • DoctorArchDoctorArch Curmudgeon Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    oldsak wrote: »

    This runs counter to Catholicism, in which a lay member can have whatever opinions they like, and express them quite openly and freely and never get in trouble. Priests can get excommunicated for this, but even then its rare, many Catholic priests are very outspoken about opinions that run contrary to church law, you have to be extremely persistent and loud to get into trouble.

    Well technically a lay Catholic can't have whatever beliefs he likes. He is required to accept any dogmatic teachings of the church.

    No, he won't be excommunicated, but it's definitely not the position of the Church that the laity can believe whatever they want.

    What the church says it will tolerate and what it actually tolerates is a non-trivial distinction.

    After all, you don't see the Catholic church excommunicating Catholic politicians who are on the record as being pro-choice.

    steam_sig.png
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    oldsak wrote: »
    h3ndu wrote: »
    I want to ask, quickly, why everyone seems to think our church encourages blind faith? Of almost all other churches I know, ours seems to do a pretty good job of encouraging study and development of knowledge, both scripturally and worldy. What gives with this idea?

    Well.. most religions encourage blind faith, it's not unique to the LDS.

    I think why people tend to pick on the LDS is that to the rest of us, your founder seems to have clearly been a con artist.

    Not to say that other religious leaders aren't con artists, but your religion is younger so we have access to better records surrounding your founding, so it's more obvious.

    Pretty much this yes.

    Given another 1000 years even L. Ron Hubbard will become respectable.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Mormon_sacred_texts#Historicity
    I mean, come on. Some of the apologetics relies on such special pleading as to be applicable to any crackpot theory.

    Then you have stuff like this:
    In The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church), The Doctrine and Covenants of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints stands alongside the Bible, the Book of Mormon, and The Pearl of Great Price as holy scripture. Together they are referred to as the "Standard Works". The LDS Church's version of the Doctrine and Covenants is officially described by the church as "containing revelations given to Joseph Smith, the Prophet, with some additions by his successors in the Presidency of the Church."[6]

    In 1876, Sections 101 from the 1835 Edition (and subsequent printings) was removed. Section 101 was a Statement on Marriage as adopted by a conference of the church,[9][10] and contained the following text:
    “ "Inasmuch as this Church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication and polygamy, we declare that we believe that one man should have one wife, and one woman but one husband, except in the case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again."[11] ”

    It was superseded by section 132 of the modern LDS edition, which contains a revelation received by Joseph Smith on eternal marriage and teaches the doctrine of plural marriage.

  • RiemannLivesRiemannLives Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Couscous wrote: »
    oldsak wrote: »
    h3ndu wrote: »
    I want to ask, quickly, why everyone seems to think our church encourages blind faith? Of almost all other churches I know, ours seems to do a pretty good job of encouraging study and development of knowledge, both scripturally and worldy. What gives with this idea?

    Well.. most religions encourage blind faith, it's not unique to the LDS.

    I think why people tend to pick on the LDS is that to the rest of us, your founder seems to have clearly been a con artist.

    Not to say that other religious leaders aren't con artists, but your religion is younger so we have access to better records surrounding your founding, so it's more obvious.

    Pretty much this yes.

    Given another 1000 years even L. Ron Hubbard will become respectable.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Mormon_sacred_texts#Historicity
    I mean, come on. Some of the apologetics relies on such special pleading as to be applicable to any crackpot theory.

    Then you have stuff like this:
    In The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church), The Doctrine and Covenants of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints stands alongside the Bible, the Book of Mormon, and The Pearl of Great Price as holy scripture. Together they are referred to as the "Standard Works". The LDS Church's version of the Doctrine and Covenants is officially described by the church as "containing revelations given to Joseph Smith, the Prophet, with some additions by his successors in the Presidency of the Church."[6]

    In 1876, Sections 101 from the 1835 Edition (and subsequent printings) was removed. Section 101 was a Statement on Marriage as adopted by a conference of the church,[9][10] and contained the following text:
    “ "Inasmuch as this Church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication and polygamy, we declare that we believe that one man should have one wife, and one woman but one husband, except in the case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again."[11] ”

    It was superseded by section 132 of the modern LDS edition, which contains a revelation received by Joseph Smith on eternal marriage and teaches the doctrine of plural marriage.

    It's not any crazier than the shit that comes up from a careful reading of the New Testament. It just doesn't have that patina of respectability that comes with age.

    And having founded their religion after the invention of movable type was generally a poor move.

  • oldsakoldsak Registered User regular
    edited September 2010

    What the church says it will tolerate and what it actually tolerates is a non-trivial distinction.

    Apparently it will not tolerate advocating for women's ordination, an end to mandatory priestly celibacy, a change in the church's teaching on a variety of sexual matters, and a change to the way the church is governed.

  • KalTorakKalTorak Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    DoctorArch wrote: »
    oldsak wrote: »

    This runs counter to Catholicism, in which a lay member can have whatever opinions they like, and express them quite openly and freely and never get in trouble. Priests can get excommunicated for this, but even then its rare, many Catholic priests are very outspoken about opinions that run contrary to church law, you have to be extremely persistent and loud to get into trouble.

    Well technically a lay Catholic can't have whatever beliefs he likes. He is required to accept any dogmatic teachings of the church.

    No, he won't be excommunicated, but it's definitely not the position of the Church that the laity can believe whatever they want.

    What the church says it will tolerate and what it actually tolerates is a non-trivial distinction.

    After all, you don't see the Catholic church excommunicating Catholic politicians who are on the record as being pro-choice.

    Might not get excommunicated, but you do get cases like that politician who was publicly refused communion.

  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    The Catholic Church doesn't have much control over lay members. Hell, they don't even trust their priests.

  • NuckerNucker Registered User
    edited September 2010
    sidhaethe wrote: »
    Nucker wrote: »
    Corehealer wrote: »
    Even under the threat of persecution, which probably does not apply to this situation, you can also leave the group if you don't agree with it. Choosing not to automatically means you have no issue/problem with what they are doing.

    Not leaving a Christian denomination even though it is against gay equality is wrong, because there is no moral base for rejecting gay equality.

    If this is serious reasoning...just, wow. This statement condemns every conceivable social group, from families to peers to employers. Your friends doing something that violates some moral code? Still here? That means you condone it. Told your friends it was wrong? Asked them to stop? Tried to offer productive alternatives? Sorry, you still condone it and should be equally condemned. Your prior friendship be damned, if you still hang around those people then you are as guilty as they are.

    Not to put too fine a point on it, but... yeah, if your friends are known bigots and you continue to hang out with them, expect to be considered a bigot, too, because uh... you don't have to tolerate bigotry and associate with bigots?

    I have racist family members and, while they are still family, I do distance myself from them, because... they're racist. Not sure what's controversial about that.

    "Hey, my friend here refers to black as n-words and considers race-mixing bestiality, but he shoots a mean game of pool, so." D:

    Which makes your friend a racist, not you. Or whatever other behavior is in question for that matter.

    There is a clear distinction between a person who publicly engages in an activity, a person who doesn't engage but silently supports, a person who doesn't engage and silently dissents, and a person who doesn't engage and publicly dissents. The above view treats every one of those different situations as though they were actively engaging in whatever behavior is in question. That is absolutely prejudice and to hold someone to account like that is parallel to racism.

  • TomantaTomanta Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Given another 1000 years even L. Ron Hubbard will become respectable.

    Just in time for us to overthrow our Psychlo rulers.

    camo_sig2.png
  • DoctorArchDoctorArch Curmudgeon Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Nucker wrote: »
    sidhaethe wrote: »
    Nucker wrote: »
    Corehealer wrote: »
    Even under the threat of persecution, which probably does not apply to this situation, you can also leave the group if you don't agree with it. Choosing not to automatically means you have no issue/problem with what they are doing.

    Not leaving a Christian denomination even though it is against gay equality is wrong, because there is no moral base for rejecting gay equality.

    If this is serious reasoning...just, wow. This statement condemns every conceivable social group, from families to peers to employers. Your friends doing something that violates some moral code? Still here? That means you condone it. Told your friends it was wrong? Asked them to stop? Tried to offer productive alternatives? Sorry, you still condone it and should be equally condemned. Your prior friendship be damned, if you still hang around those people then you are as guilty as they are.

    Not to put too fine a point on it, but... yeah, if your friends are known bigots and you continue to hang out with them, expect to be considered a bigot, too, because uh... you don't have to tolerate bigotry and associate with bigots?

    I have racist family members and, while they are still family, I do distance myself from them, because... they're racist. Not sure what's controversial about that.

    "Hey, my friend here refers to black as n-words and considers race-mixing bestiality, but he shoots a mean game of pool, so." D:

    Which makes your friend a racist, not you. Or whatever other behavior is in question for that matter.

    There is a clear distinction between a person who publicly engages in an activity, a person who doesn't engage but silently supports, a person who doesn't engage and silently dissents, and a person who doesn't engage and publicly dissents. The above view treats every one of those different situations as though they were actively engaging in whatever behavior is in question. That is absolutely prejudice and to hold someone to account like that is parallel to racism.

    The first one is an obvious engagement in the activity. For all intents and purposes the second and third are acquiescing.

    steam_sig.png
  • KalTorakKalTorak Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    First, it's not a parallel to racism because they choose to label themselves that way. Race is not a choice.

    Second, by identifying themselves as a member of a religion, they're saying "I agree with the tenets of this religion." That's what defines who is part of a religion. If they don't agree with all parts (which is probably somewhat common, depending on the religion), they're going to have to deal with the fact that the stated tenets of that religion are the assumed defaults that everyone is going to affix to them because of the label they've chosen.

    If a guy says "I'm a Muslim," I'm going to assume he has some views about how women are inferior to men, because that's one of the tenets of Islam. Sure, maybe once I get to know him I'll find out he doesn't feel that way regardless, but if all I know about him is that he's a Muslim, how am I supposed to know which tenets he likes and which he doesn't like? He's the one that chose the label, he knows what the default tenets of that religion are.

    By default, I'm going to assume that the people who choose to participate in a religion are doing so because they share beliefs - why else would they choose that religion? If you're a pro-choice, pro-death penalty, equal gender rights, pro-birth control, person who doesn't really believe in transubstantiation or the redemptive death of Jesus, why would you choose to call yourself a Catholic?

  • Edith_Bagot-DixEdith_Bagot-Dix Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    DoctorArch wrote: »
    oldsak wrote: »

    This runs counter to Catholicism, in which a lay member can have whatever opinions they like, and express them quite openly and freely and never get in trouble. Priests can get excommunicated for this, but even then its rare, many Catholic priests are very outspoken about opinions that run contrary to church law, you have to be extremely persistent and loud to get into trouble.

    Well technically a lay Catholic can't have whatever beliefs he likes. He is required to accept any dogmatic teachings of the church.

    No, he won't be excommunicated, but it's definitely not the position of the Church that the laity can believe whatever they want.

    What the church says it will tolerate and what it actually tolerates is a non-trivial distinction.

    After all, you don't see the Catholic church excommunicating Catholic politicians who are on the record as being pro-choice.

    The Catholic church teaches that people excommunicate themselves, so they only rarely make the announcement of this status if they're concerned there might be some confusion or they want to be crystal clear on some doctrinal point (i.e. "no abortions ever" with regard to the little girl in Brazil). They have a number of theological reasons why they've changed their policy over time, but from a practical point of view, declaring people to be excommunicated serves as a reminder of the crooked old Church of days gone by, and the Church is basically impotent when it comes to enforcing its rulings, at least among its lay members.

    steam_sig.png

    Also on PSN: twobadcats
  • override367override367 misogynist/MRA/socially irresponsible Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Tomanta wrote: »
    Given another 1000 years even L. Ron Hubbard will become respectable.

    Just in time for us to overthrow our Psychlo rulers.

    I hope their occupation doesn't last long, how anyone could live with all those tilted camera angles and bad dialogue is beyond me

    XBLIVE: Biggestoverride
    League of Legends: override367
  • NuckerNucker Registered User
    edited September 2010
    KalTorak wrote: »
    First, it's not a parallel to racism because they choose to label themselves that way. Race is not a choice.

    Neither is being born into a religious household that from birth teaches you to follow a particular religion. As there are obviously people who are born into religions and later choose to part ways, it's clear that this isn't as absolute as race, but tell me you haven't met religious people who will never change their beliefs regardless of what science or other religions or even common sense have to say. I'll bet a fair number of those people were born into the religion they practice, and for that matter the people who weren't born into it would probably say that their religion is not a choice but the simple truth.

    KalTorak wrote:
    Second, by identifying themselves as a member of a religion, they're saying "I agree with the tenets of this religion." That's what defines who is part of a religion. If they don't agree with all parts (which is probably somewhat common, depending on the religion), they're going to have to deal with the fact that the stated tenets of that religion are the assumed defaults that everyone is going to affix to them because of the label they've chosen.

    I'm reading a massive contradiction here. If a person identifies themselves as part of a religion, that means they're saying they agree with every single aspect of the religion. But if they don't agree...they don't agree. They don't stop identifying with the religion because they disagree with certain issues.

    If they don't agree, they're going to have to deal with the fact that the stated tenets of that religion are assumed defaults that everyone is going to affix to them because of the label they've chosen. Fair enough. If someone looks at a self-identified Mormon and says, "Gee, I'll bet that person has a really good family structure and likes to dress like the Cleaver family" then whatever. But that's not what usually happens. Someone looks at a Mormon and says, "I'll bet that guy is into polygamy and treats his wife like an object." Religious prejudice happens regularly, and in the same crude way as racial prejudice occurs.

  • sidhaethesidhaethe Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    KalTorak wrote: »
    If a guy says "I'm a Muslim," I'm going to assume he has some views about how women are inferior to men, because that's one of the tenets of Islam.

    Citation please?

    (I mean, ugh, don't make me defend Islam, but a lot of things are talked about as though they are common knowledge about what "Islam" teaches or the "tenets" of Islam [5 pillars of faith? 6 pillars of belief? Because I can't think of anything else resembling "tenets"] and I have to say most of it is from a position of ignorance. So if you have a Qur'anic quote and not just "Iran stones women" that would be great.)

  • sidhaethesidhaethe Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Nucker wrote: »
    sidhaethe wrote: »
    Nucker wrote: »
    Corehealer wrote: »
    Even under the threat of persecution, which probably does not apply to this situation, you can also leave the group if you don't agree with it. Choosing not to automatically means you have no issue/problem with what they are doing.

    Not leaving a Christian denomination even though it is against gay equality is wrong, because there is no moral base for rejecting gay equality.

    If this is serious reasoning...just, wow. This statement condemns every conceivable social group, from families to peers to employers. Your friends doing something that violates some moral code? Still here? That means you condone it. Told your friends it was wrong? Asked them to stop? Tried to offer productive alternatives? Sorry, you still condone it and should be equally condemned. Your prior friendship be damned, if you still hang around those people then you are as guilty as they are.

    Not to put too fine a point on it, but... yeah, if your friends are known bigots and you continue to hang out with them, expect to be considered a bigot, too, because uh... you don't have to tolerate bigotry and associate with bigots?

    I have racist family members and, while they are still family, I do distance myself from them, because... they're racist. Not sure what's controversial about that.

    "Hey, my friend here refers to black as n-words and considers race-mixing bestiality, but he shoots a mean game of pool, so." D:

    Which makes your friend a racist, not you. Or whatever other behavior is in question for that matter.

    There is a clear distinction between a person who publicly engages in an activity, a person who doesn't engage but silently supports, a person who doesn't engage and silently dissents, and a person who doesn't engage and publicly dissents. The above view treats every one of those different situations as though they were actively engaging in whatever behavior is in question. That is absolutely prejudice and to hold someone to account like that is parallel to racism.

    Hey, you're judged by the company you keep. You bet I'm prejudiced against someone who chooses to associate with racists, and for you to compare that to being an actual racist, i.e. someone who is prejudiced against someone for their physical genetic characteristics, is absurd and not worthy of further response.

  • KalTorakKalTorak Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    sidhaethe wrote: »
    KalTorak wrote: »
    If a guy says "I'm a Muslim," I'm going to assume he has some views about how women are inferior to men, because that's one of the tenets of Islam.

    Citation please?

    (I mean, ugh, don't make me defend Islam, but a lot of things are talked about as though they are common knowledge about what "Islam" teaches or the "tenets" of Islam [5 pillars of faith? 6 pillars of belief? Because I can't think of anything else resembling "tenets"] and I have to say most of it is from a position of ignorance. So if you have a Qur'anic quote and not just "Iran stones women" that would be great.)

    From the Quran 4:7:
    Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance): For Allah is Most High, great (above you all).

    (I don't know if 4:7 is proper notation, just got it from a wiki link.)

    The Five Pillars of Islam don't include "Fuck Women, they're like dirt", I was using tenet as a general sort of "this is an accepted part of the religion".

  • NuckerNucker Registered User
    edited September 2010
    sidhaethe wrote: »
    Hey, you're judged by the company you keep. You bet I'm prejudiced against someone who chooses to associate with racists, and for you to compare that to being an actual racist, i.e. someone who is prejudiced against someone for their physical genetic characteristics, is absurd and not worthy of further response.

    I will consider only one aspect of a person's character and refuse further consideration because of it. I don't care why you do it, it's still prejudice and it's still goosery.

Sign In or Register to comment.