So, you think it's better that people go to the grave with the grim perspective that it was all for nothing.
This is your opinion, not mine. Nor is it the opinion, I think, of most other agnostics or atheists. If you think that without a continuance to your existence life is pointless, you're a closet nihilist. This is psychological projection.
Their families should simply accept the fact that they're gone and live with the pain of lost love.
Except thats not what we did. Never once did I tell someone that they were going to hell, in fact, we don't even believe in hell (atleast in the traditional sense that most of christianity does.) The majority of the time when we knocked on a door we would say something to the extent of, "Hi we're missionaries from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and we have a message about how the family can stay together after this life, can we share...etc"
I mean, really if you think that giving people hope that they can see their loved ones again really is an assholish thing to do, then fine, but dont pretend that we act or treat people like those morons in the westboro church or the guys in the op do. We don't do that, our church discourages against that heavily, and If I had done soemthing like that as a missionary I would have been disciplined and sent home. We share our message with love, not hate.
You are not evil. Just sort of dicks, I guess, for presuming that my life is so bleak and depressing that I need you to give me hope. Or believing that your message and beliefs are the ones to give me hope in the first place. Or underestimating my intelligence by thinking that I haven't heard of the Mormon church. And lying to my face by claiming that your belief is the truth and my family will stay together in the afterlife if I just do what you say.
I mean, I don't rate you with child molesters or the Westboro assholes, or anything. Somewhere around door to door salesmen. Bunch of guys peddling useless shit to me without me asking for it, and claiming that it's totally awesome.
So, you think it's better that people go to the grave with the grim perspective that it was all for nothing. Their families should simply accept the fact that they're gone and live with the pain of lost love.
See, this is what I am talking about. You are an offensive dick by claiming that say, my grandfather's long life was meaningless without an afterlife. That nothing that he did here had any purpose if he isn't sitting next to some sky wizard in the heavens right now. That's insulting to both my own beliefs and his memory.
DarkCrawler on
0
Options
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
So, you think it's better that people go to the grave with the grim perspective that it was all for nothing. Their families should simply accept the fact that they're gone and live with the pain of lost love.
That a life like that is far better than trying to do everything in your power to be with your loved ones again. The pain and fear of a grim death is far more pleasing than going to your death bed with the knowledge that someone is waiting for you beyond the vail, that not only can you see your loved ones again, but you can continue to progress with them as an eternal family.
Yeah man, hope totally isn't desirable at all.
I find it unlikely that this is the metric by which you judge the worth of such beliefs. Would you be talking the same way about a secular organisation disingenuously collecting funds for a cryogenics facility which was clearly fabricated? After all, they provide hope for the reunion with one's loved ones, right?
Plus, you're failing to address the fact that we don't want people to view death as no big deal - removing the urgency to prevent the deaths of others, to mourn the death of one's loved ones and to avoid sacrificing yourself an others for nonsensical causes is in no one except the ideologue's interests.
Apothe0sis on
0
Options
Burden of ProofYou three boys picked a beautiful hill to die on.Registered Userregular
So, you think it's better that people go to the grave with the grim perspective that it was all for nothing. Their families should simply accept the fact that they're gone and live with the pain of lost love.
That a life like that is far better than trying to do everything in your power to be with your loved ones again. The pain and fear of a grim death is far more pleasing than going to your death bed with the knowledge that someone is waiting for you beyond the vail, that not only can you see your loved ones again, but you can continue to progress with them as an eternal family.
Yeah man, hope totally isn't desirable at all.
I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it.
I'd rather know it's final than have false hope.
That quote about being dead for billions of years before you were born does not make any sense. You can't be dead without first having lived. There is a difference between death and non existence.
CasedOut on
0
Options
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
edited September 2010
Some organizations/people manage to do good without rattling on about their god/persecuting minorities/raping children. Since those things don't seem to be necessary components of doing good, why shouldn't the baby be thrown out with the bathwater, when with a little maturity we could have all baby and no filthy bathwater?
A message of love that just so happens to subjugate women, oppress and demean minorities, and actively reject gays. All this, in addition to having nothing to base their assertions on.
Standing on peoples' doors preaching to them is no longer an effective means of evangelism. For one, you're perceived as selling something. And we all know how much we dislike door-to-door salesmen for the most part: It's annoying, obtrusive, and somewhat invasive. And depending on your attitude/approach, it's downright offensive to some.
Rather than preach to a bunch of strangers who "don't know you from Adam", why not get out in the community in other ways. Actions speak louder than words, so rather than preaching at people, show people what you believe in: help out charities, offer free services to the community, etc... If people can't tell that you're religious just by being around you for an extended period of time, chances are you're not living what you're believing.
Be there for your friends as well... not just your religious friends, or your non-religious friends, as that seems selective and suspect. In short, just be a good person. If you are, people will want to be around you, they'll see what a joy you are, and how your religion helps bring you joy, their interest will be piqued far more effectively than showing up on their doorstep and handing them a pamphlet.
tl;dr: Don't be a dick, be a good person, and help dispel the negative stereotypes of religion on a person-by-person basis.
Guys, I dislike Mormons a lot (you probably saw my post) but I can testify to a few things.
1) They're the politist and nicest door-to-door proseletizers. You tell them no they might go "Are you sure?" at worst and then leave you alone. They don't all keep records on who they talk to so you may get another set of missionaries in following years but they'll all go away just as easily.
2) While some hate gays there are those who will simply 'not support' gays because it's not in their beliefs. Actually, a lot of the Mormons I knew were like this (mostly basic members too). They basically said "You're gay, that's fine, I won't get on your case, we can still be friends but I'm not going to support you." live and let live basically. If you're gay and in the church you will get the talk though but that's a totally different story.
I am not a Mormon (or any religion), but I don't think the excommunication for failure to tithe is true. Are there any recent links to back that up? According to wiki at least, that's on the list of things their "council" will not investigate when determining disciplinary action.
By the way, I'm all for hating on douches who helped to pass prop 8, but using phrases like "lynch gays" when talking about the modern churches seems disingenuous.
By the way, is there proof that the Mormon church contributed directly to the Prop 8 fund? I have a Mormon co-worker who adamantly believes that isn't true, as he said the church does not ever contribute to political causes. Any links would be great, as most of what I found on Google wasn't very well thought out.
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
edited September 2010
There's a big leap between "live and let live" and devoting millions of dollars and thousands of man-hours toward taking away the rights of California gays.
So, you think it's better that people go to the grave with the grim perspective that it was all for nothing. Their families should simply accept the fact that they're gone and live with the pain of lost love.
That a life like that is far better than trying to do everything in your power to be with your loved ones again. The pain and fear of a grim death is far more pleasing than going to your death bed with the knowledge that someone is waiting for you beyond the vail, that not only can you see your loved ones again, but you can continue to progress with them as an eternal family.
Yeah man, hope totally isn't desirable at all.
I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it.
I'd rather know it's final than have false hope.
That quote about being dead for billions of years before you were born does not make any sense. You can't be dead without first having lived. There is a difference between death and non existence.
Not really. I didn't exist before I was born. I won't exist after I die. Sure, there's a convenient label for one of those things, but the basic reality of both is identical.
There's a big leap between "live and let live" and devoting millions of dollars and thousands of man-hours toward taking away the rights of California gays.
And "live and let live" and "live and let me try to convert you and take certain political positions because that is what my religion says I should do." No man is an island and all that.
So, you think it's better that people go to the grave with the grim perspective that it was all for nothing. Their families should simply accept the fact that they're gone and live with the pain of lost love.
That a life like that is far better than trying to do everything in your power to be with your loved ones again. The pain and fear of a grim death is far more pleasing than going to your death bed with the knowledge that someone is waiting for you beyond the vail, that not only can you see your loved ones again, but you can continue to progress with them as an eternal family.
Yeah man, hope totally isn't desirable at all.
I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it.
I'd rather know it's final than have false hope.
That quote about being dead for billions of years before you were born does not make any sense. You can't be dead without first having lived. There is a difference between death and non existence.
If all evidence for your existence is ultimately erased (as it will be), then isn't that effectively the same thing? Everything a person is, is the product of a supernovae - and probably will be again.
Whoa guys, I said there were some that truly went "Live and let live".
You can choose to be gooses about it but that's what they do, christ. Don't go throwing shit on my info because you hate religion THAT much.
We're not attacking every aspect of every individual Mormon. We're saying that as an organization, the Mormon church does some abhorrent shit, and as voluntary supporters of that organization, Mormons are directly or indirectly supporting the abhorrent actions.
People can point out charitable deeds performed by organizations all day long, but an organization doesn't need to do abhorrent shit in order to carry out charitable deeds. They are unrelated. There's nothing to stop supporters of the organization from continuing to perform charity on their own, without supporting the organization that doing horrible shit. But as long as they keep supporting that organization, they are implicitly supporting its actions, and are morally culpable.
Whoa guys, I said there were some that truly went "Live and let live".
You can choose to be gooses about it but that's what they do, christ. Don't go throwing shit on my info because you hate religion THAT much.
We're not attacking every aspect of every individual Mormon. We're saying that as an organization, the Mormon church does some abhorrent shit, and as voluntary supporters of that organization, Mormons are directly or indirectly supporting the abhorrent actions.
People can point out charitable deeds performed by organizations all day long, but an organization doesn't need to do abhorrent shit in order to carry out charitable deeds. They are unrelated. There's nothing to stop supporters of the organization from continuing to perform charity on their own, without supporting the organization that doing horrible shit. But as long as they keep supporting that organization, they are implicitly supporting its actions, and are morally culpable.
I think this really depends.
Do they know about what's going on? If so, do they actually support it? If they don't, do they have reasons for not leaving?
I mean, you wouldn't think it was fair if I held you morally culpable for the stuff your country did just because you don't want to move.
I mean, you wouldn't think it was fair if I started blaming you for the stuff your country did just because you don't want to move.
I can't simply stop being a member of my country by not paying taxes and telling it to fuck off. It is theoretically easy to move to another church. There are the problems with social pressure, but the logistical problems are much less than personally seceding from the union or leaving the country.
I mean, you wouldn't think it was fair if I started blaming you for the stuff your country did just because you don't want to move.
I can't simply stop being a member of my country by not paying taxes and telling it to fuck off. It is theoretically easy to move to another church. There are the problems with social pressure, but the logistical problems are much less than personally seceding from the union or leaving the country.
Just because it's harder to leave the country doesn't give you a free pass on this one.
I mean, you wouldn't think it was fair if I started blaming you for the stuff your country did just because you don't want to move.
I can't simply stop being a member of my country by not paying taxes and telling it to fuck off. It is theoretically easy to move to another church. There are the problems with social pressure, but the logistical problems are much less than personally seceding from the union or leaving the country.
Just because it's harder to leave the country doesn't give you a free pass on this one.
Leaving the country means I have to become a citizen of another country. Said country will also be full of shit. Leaving the church doesn't mean I have to go to another church. I just have to stop attending and giving it money.
I mean, you wouldn't think it was fair if I started blaming you for the stuff your country did just because you don't want to move.
I can't simply stop being a member of my country by not paying taxes and telling it to fuck off. It is theoretically easy to move to another church. There are the problems with social pressure, but the logistical problems are much less than personally seceding from the union or leaving the country.
Just because it's harder to leave the country doesn't give you a free pass on this one.
Leaving the country means I have to become a citizen of another country. Said country will also be full of shit. Leaving the church doesn't mean I have to go to another church. I just have to stop attending and giving it money.
So I'll give you leeway then, as long as you're actively working towards moving to that other country.
I mean, you wouldn't think it was fair if I started blaming you for the stuff your country did just because you don't want to move.
I can't simply stop being a member of my country by not paying taxes and telling it to fuck off. It is theoretically easy to move to another church. There are the problems with social pressure, but the logistical problems are much less than personally seceding from the union or leaving the country.
Just because it's harder to leave the country doesn't give you a free pass on this one.
Leaving the country means I have to become a citizen of another country. Said country will also be full of shit. Leaving the church doesn't mean I have to go to another church. I just have to stop attending and giving it money.
So I'll give you leeway then, as long as you're actively working towards moving to that other country.
Name one country that is not full of shit and I will go to it. I'll see you when you have finished finding Utopia. Meanwhile, there is always Unitarian Universalism.
Couscous on
0
Options
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
Guys, I dislike Mormons a lot (you probably saw my post) but I can testify to a few things.
1) They're the politist and nicest door-to-door proseletizers. You tell them no they might go "Are you sure?" at worst and then leave you alone. They don't all keep records on who they talk to so you may get another set of missionaries in following years but they'll all go away just as easily.
2) While some hate gays there are those who will simply 'not support' gays because it's not in their beliefs. Actually, a lot of the Mormons I knew were like this (mostly basic members too). They basically said "You're gay, that's fine, I won't get on your case, we can still be friends but I'm not going to support you." live and let live basically. If you're gay and in the church you will get the talk though but that's a totally different story.
#2 is a pretty low bar in terms of an apology for Mormonism. I don't think that such an attitude is necessarily an improvement over the general consensus of the thread on the moral failings of Mormonism, let alone an admirable stance.
I mean, you wouldn't think it was fair if I started blaming you for the stuff your country did just because you don't want to move.
I can't simply stop being a member of my country by not paying taxes and telling it to fuck off. It is theoretically easy to move to another church. There are the problems with social pressure, but the logistical problems are much less than personally seceding from the union or leaving the country.
Just because it's harder to leave the country doesn't give you a free pass on this one.
Leaving the country means I have to become a citizen of another country. Said country will also be full of shit. Leaving the church doesn't mean I have to go to another church. I just have to stop attending and giving it money.
So I'll give you leeway then, as long as you're actively working towards moving to that other country.
Name one country that is not full of shit and I will go to it. I'll see you when you have finished finding Utopia. Meanwhile, there is always Unitarian Universalism.
I dunno, if a Unitarian Universalist funds prop 8 or does something equally horrid we're back in this debate all over again.
Guys, I dislike Mormons a lot (you probably saw my post) but I can testify to a few things.
1) They're the politist and nicest door-to-door proseletizers. You tell them no they might go "Are you sure?" at worst and then leave you alone. They don't all keep records on who they talk to so you may get another set of missionaries in following years but they'll all go away just as easily.
2) While some hate gays there are those who will simply 'not support' gays because it's not in their beliefs. Actually, a lot of the Mormons I knew were like this (mostly basic members too). They basically said "You're gay, that's fine, I won't get on your case, we can still be friends but I'm not going to support you." live and let live basically. If you're gay and in the church you will get the talk though but that's a totally different story.
#2 is a pretty low bar in terms of an apology for Mormonism. I don't think that such an attitude is necessarily an improvement over the general consensus of the thread on the moral failings of Mormonism, let alone an admirable stance.
I think it's a good start. I wouldn't expect them to give up their religion and beliefs and they don't expect me to give up mine (assuming I'm gay). I don't believe they're right and they don't believe I'm right but we're willing to be civil, even friendly to each other.
It's an equal, yet civil stance and that's a good point to be at I think.
Guys, I dislike Mormons a lot (you probably saw my post) but I can testify to a few things.
1) They're the politist and nicest door-to-door proseletizers. You tell them no they might go "Are you sure?" at worst and then leave you alone. They don't all keep records on who they talk to so you may get another set of missionaries in following years but they'll all go away just as easily.
2) While some hate gays there are those who will simply 'not support' gays because it's not in their beliefs. Actually, a lot of the Mormons I knew were like this (mostly basic members too). They basically said "You're gay, that's fine, I won't get on your case, we can still be friends but I'm not going to support you." live and let live basically. If you're gay and in the church you will get the talk though but that's a totally different story.
#2 is a pretty low bar in terms of an apology for Mormonism. I don't think that such an attitude is necessarily an improvement over the general consensus of the thread on the moral failings of Mormonism, let alone an admirable stance.
I think it's a good start. I wouldn't expect them to give up their religion and beliefs and they don't expect me to give up mine (assuming I'm gay). I don't believe they're right and they don't believe I'm right but we're willing to be civil, even friendly to each other.
It's an equal, yet civil stance and that's a good point to be at I think.
Really? I expect people to give up regressive and otherwise barbaric, stupid or otherwise ill-conceived beliefs. At least, if they wish to be good people.
Saying "I'm not going to yell at you, or support you" is entirely compatible with "I, personally, am not going to interfere with you, but you can bet I am going to vote to restrict your rights." A position of lack of support/condemnation for an entirely benign and private matter (such as homosexuality) is a reprehensible one.
Guys, I dislike Mormons a lot (you probably saw my post) but I can testify to a few things.
1) They're the politist and nicest door-to-door proseletizers. You tell them no they might go "Are you sure?" at worst and then leave you alone. They don't all keep records on who they talk to so you may get another set of missionaries in following years but they'll all go away just as easily.
2) While some hate gays there are those who will simply 'not support' gays because it's not in their beliefs. Actually, a lot of the Mormons I knew were like this (mostly basic members too). They basically said "You're gay, that's fine, I won't get on your case, we can still be friends but I'm not going to support you." live and let live basically. If you're gay and in the church you will get the talk though but that's a totally different story.
#2 is a pretty low bar in terms of an apology for Mormonism. I don't think that such an attitude is necessarily an improvement over the general consensus of the thread on the moral failings of Mormonism, let alone an admirable stance.
I think it's a good start. I wouldn't expect them to give up their religion and beliefs and they don't expect me to give up mine (assuming I'm gay). I don't believe they're right and they don't believe I'm right but we're willing to be civil, even friendly to each other.
It's an equal, yet civil stance and that's a good point to be at I think.
It's not an equal stance. They genuinely believe that you don't deserve equal rights if you are gay. You don't believe that they don't deserve equal rights because they are Mormon.
They are the assholes in that equation.
And no, I don't think religion is justification for limiting people's rights, sorry.
I mean, you wouldn't think it was fair if I started blaming you for the stuff your country did just because you don't want to move.
I can't simply stop being a member of my country by not paying taxes and telling it to fuck off. It is theoretically easy to move to another church. There are the problems with social pressure, but the logistical problems are much less than personally seceding from the union or leaving the country.
Just because it's harder to leave the country doesn't give you a free pass on this one.
Really, no. I've left my country *and* my childhood religion and the latter was infinitely easier, even with the existential crises my atheism provoked for a time. Fortunately you don't have to go through an immigration process to leave your religion, or learn a new language, or become employable. It's so not the same thing that the comparison is hilarious to me.
Also, a single UU paying to support Prop 8 (I would love to see the odds on this one) - especially since tithing is not required and one can not be expelled or excommunicated from the UUs - is not remotely the same as a large number of believers giving donations to anti-gay proposition funds based on their scriptures' condemnation of homosexuality. Also, there is no unified UU "doctrine" - just principles - and no "Mother Church" of the UU faith, and no "prophets" of the UU church who can speak for any other UU or any deity or deity-like figure and thus compel members of the church to obey.
If the Mormon church were not an authoritarian hierarchy and each Mormon was free to do his or her own thing, believe his or her own thing, tithe or not tithe, be gay, and be a Mormon-hyphenate, this wouldn't be such a false equivocation.
Ignoring the whole "You're morally culpable because your religion does this whether you agree or not." thing since that's up for debate, these people aren't oppressing anyone. They simply do not agree with me but are willing to let me do as I wish.
Also, just because a sect has no problems now doesn't mean they're forever safe or good.
Also, I'm sorry that the world doesn't have any free place where the country doesn't do anything nobody disagrees with. If only the world understood that you're human and that humans aren't infallable nor do they necessarily reflect the sum of the whole.
Guys, I dislike Mormons a lot (you probably saw my post) but I can testify to a few things.
1) They're the politist and nicest door-to-door proseletizers. You tell them no they might go "Are you sure?" at worst and then leave you alone. They don't all keep records on who they talk to so you may get another set of missionaries in following years but they'll all go away just as easily.
2) While some hate gays there are those who will simply 'not support' gays because it's not in their beliefs. Actually, a lot of the Mormons I knew were like this (mostly basic members too). They basically said "You're gay, that's fine, I won't get on your case, we can still be friends but I'm not going to support you." live and let live basically. If you're gay and in the church you will get the talk though but that's a totally different story.
#2 is a pretty low bar in terms of an apology for Mormonism. I don't think that such an attitude is necessarily an improvement over the general consensus of the thread on the moral failings of Mormonism, let alone an admirable stance.
I think it's a good start. I wouldn't expect them to give up their religion and beliefs and they don't expect me to give up mine (assuming I'm gay). I don't believe they're right and they don't believe I'm right but we're willing to be civil, even friendly to each other.
It's an equal, yet civil stance and that's a good point to be at I think.
It's not an equal stance. They genuinely believe that you don't deserve equal rights if you are gay. You don't believe that they don't deserve equal rights because they are Mormon.
They are the assholes in that equation.
And no, I don't think religion is justification for limiting people's rights, sorry.
This is funny, I never said any of this.
Yet everyone has assumed it.
Crazy world.
edit: This reply also applies to:
Saying "I'm not going to yell at you, or support you" is entirely compatible with "I, personally, am not going to interfere with you, but you can bet I am going to vote to restrict your rights." A position of lack of support/condemnation for an entirely benign and private matter (such as homosexuality) is a reprehensible one.
Really, no. I've left my country *and* my childhood religion and the latter was infinitely easier, even with the existential crises my atheism provoked for a time. Fortunately you don't have to go through an immigration process to leave your religion, or learn a new language, or become employable. It's so not the same thing that the comparison is hilarious to me.
Also, a single UU paying to support Prop 8 (I would love to see the odds on this one) - especially since tithing is not required and one can not be expelled or excommunicated from the UUs - is not remotely the same as a large number of believers giving donations to anti-gay proposition funds based on their scriptures' condemnation of homosexuality. Also, there is no unified UU "doctrine" - just principles - and no "Mother Church" of the UU faith, and no "prophets" of the UU church who can speak for any other UU or any deity or deity-like figure and thus compel members of the church to obey.
If the Mormon church were not an authoritarian hierarchy and each Mormon was free to do his or her own thing, believe his or her own thing, tithe or not tithe, be gay, and be a Mormon-hyphenate, this wouldn't be such a false equivocation.
So many replies. You guys really hate religion.
Listen, somewhere along the lines I said "I know Mormons who go by the live and let live prophesy." in fact, one of these is an Aunt so I know them very well.
Then you guys jumped in and said "No, that's not possible, because of X they must be horrible people." in a sort of "Tough cookies the world is unfair."
So I reply with this.
I don't care how hard it is or what you have to do. You don't agree with something your country did but I'm holding you morally culpable.
Tough cookies, life is unfair.
Sipex on
0
Options
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
edited September 2010
Man, what? You said Mormons say "I am not going to get on your case but I won't support you either.". The LDS Church was one of the driving forces behind the passage of Prop 8. Make the inference.
Edit: the country analogy is no more coherent and no less a disanalogy the 18th time around.
I don't care how hard it is or what you have to do. You don't agree with something your country did but I'm holding you morally culpable.
Every country is full of shit. I cannot be a member of a country that isn't. Even in a world where it is easy to move around, it is a choice of the least bad option. The same is not true of religion. Unitarian Universalists won't support something horrible based on their beliefs because they have no set beliefs.
"live an let live" is not a good thing when the person being let lived is being oppressed. If you applied it to any other civil rights, people would think you were a shitty person.
Man, what? You said Mormons say "I am not going to get on your Cade but I won't support you either.". The LDS Church was one of the driving forces behind the passage of Prop 8. Make the inference.
Edit: the country analogy is no more coherent and no less a disanalogy the 18th time around.
You can say it's a bad analogy all you want, it doesn't make it less true. Anyone can hold you morally culpable for the groups you associate with, regardless of whether you do it voluntarily or if you support or even know of what is being done.
Also, to me "Not supporting you" is the same as "Live and let live" in this case. I never said they are actively going against me but they aren't going "You shouldn't be gay, blah blah blah."
"I don't support equal rights for blacks, but I believe in live and let live so I won't do anything about. Feel free to continue to be oppressed without me helping."
"Dick."
"Hey! LIVE AND LET LIVE, MAN."
Posts
You are not evil. Just sort of dicks, I guess, for presuming that my life is so bleak and depressing that I need you to give me hope. Or believing that your message and beliefs are the ones to give me hope in the first place. Or underestimating my intelligence by thinking that I haven't heard of the Mormon church. And lying to my face by claiming that your belief is the truth and my family will stay together in the afterlife if I just do what you say.
I mean, I don't rate you with child molesters or the Westboro assholes, or anything. Somewhere around door to door salesmen. Bunch of guys peddling useless shit to me without me asking for it, and claiming that it's totally awesome.
See, this is what I am talking about. You are an offensive dick by claiming that say, my grandfather's long life was meaningless without an afterlife. That nothing that he did here had any purpose if he isn't sitting next to some sky wizard in the heavens right now. That's insulting to both my own beliefs and his memory.
I find it unlikely that this is the metric by which you judge the worth of such beliefs. Would you be talking the same way about a secular organisation disingenuously collecting funds for a cryogenics facility which was clearly fabricated? After all, they provide hope for the reunion with one's loved ones, right?
Plus, you're failing to address the fact that we don't want people to view death as no big deal - removing the urgency to prevent the deaths of others, to mourn the death of one's loved ones and to avoid sacrificing yourself an others for nonsensical causes is in no one except the ideologue's interests.
That works for you, but it doesn't work for everyone.
That quote about being dead for billions of years before you were born does not make any sense. You can't be dead without first having lived. There is a difference between death and non existence.
Maybe, but who is anyone to decide that but themselves?
Certainly not the job of some zealot asserting absolute arrangements without a single shred of proof.
A message of love that just so happens to subjugate women, oppress and demean minorities, and actively reject gays. All this, in addition to having nothing to base their assertions on.
Thanks, but no. I politely decline.
Rather than preach to a bunch of strangers who "don't know you from Adam", why not get out in the community in other ways. Actions speak louder than words, so rather than preaching at people, show people what you believe in: help out charities, offer free services to the community, etc... If people can't tell that you're religious just by being around you for an extended period of time, chances are you're not living what you're believing.
Be there for your friends as well... not just your religious friends, or your non-religious friends, as that seems selective and suspect. In short, just be a good person. If you are, people will want to be around you, they'll see what a joy you are, and how your religion helps bring you joy, their interest will be piqued far more effectively than showing up on their doorstep and handing them a pamphlet.
tl;dr: Don't be a dick, be a good person, and help dispel the negative stereotypes of religion on a person-by-person basis.
1) They're the politist and nicest door-to-door proseletizers. You tell them no they might go "Are you sure?" at worst and then leave you alone. They don't all keep records on who they talk to so you may get another set of missionaries in following years but they'll all go away just as easily.
2) While some hate gays there are those who will simply 'not support' gays because it's not in their beliefs. Actually, a lot of the Mormons I knew were like this (mostly basic members too). They basically said "You're gay, that's fine, I won't get on your case, we can still be friends but I'm not going to support you." live and let live basically. If you're gay and in the church you will get the talk though but that's a totally different story.
By the way, I'm all for hating on douches who helped to pass prop 8, but using phrases like "lynch gays" when talking about the modern churches seems disingenuous.
By the way, is there proof that the Mormon church contributed directly to the Prop 8 fund? I have a Mormon co-worker who adamantly believes that isn't true, as he said the church does not ever contribute to political causes. Any links would be great, as most of what I found on Google wasn't very well thought out.
Not really. I didn't exist before I was born. I won't exist after I die. Sure, there's a convenient label for one of those things, but the basic reality of both is identical.
And "live and let live" and "live and let me try to convert you and take certain political positions because that is what my religion says I should do." No man is an island and all that.
You can choose to be gooses about it but that's what they do, christ. Don't go throwing shit on my info because you hate religion THAT much.
We're not attacking every aspect of every individual Mormon. We're saying that as an organization, the Mormon church does some abhorrent shit, and as voluntary supporters of that organization, Mormons are directly or indirectly supporting the abhorrent actions.
People can point out charitable deeds performed by organizations all day long, but an organization doesn't need to do abhorrent shit in order to carry out charitable deeds. They are unrelated. There's nothing to stop supporters of the organization from continuing to perform charity on their own, without supporting the organization that doing horrible shit. But as long as they keep supporting that organization, they are implicitly supporting its actions, and are morally culpable.
I think this really depends.
Do they know about what's going on? If so, do they actually support it? If they don't, do they have reasons for not leaving?
I mean, you wouldn't think it was fair if I held you morally culpable for the stuff your country did just because you don't want to move.
Did you see my previous post? Is there proof of this? I am not a member but interested in the validity of this claim.
Just because it's harder to leave the country doesn't give you a free pass on this one.
Leaving the country means I have to become a citizen of another country. Said country will also be full of shit. Leaving the church doesn't mean I have to go to another church. I just have to stop attending and giving it money.
So I'll give you leeway then, as long as you're actively working towards moving to that other country.
#2 is a pretty low bar in terms of an apology for Mormonism. I don't think that such an attitude is necessarily an improvement over the general consensus of the thread on the moral failings of Mormonism, let alone an admirable stance.
I dunno, if a Unitarian Universalist funds prop 8 or does something equally horrid we're back in this debate all over again.
I think it's a good start. I wouldn't expect them to give up their religion and beliefs and they don't expect me to give up mine (assuming I'm gay). I don't believe they're right and they don't believe I'm right but we're willing to be civil, even friendly to each other.
It's an equal, yet civil stance and that's a good point to be at I think.
They have the most boring controversies section ever.
Really? I expect people to give up regressive and otherwise barbaric, stupid or otherwise ill-conceived beliefs. At least, if they wish to be good people.
Saying "I'm not going to yell at you, or support you" is entirely compatible with "I, personally, am not going to interfere with you, but you can bet I am going to vote to restrict your rights." A position of lack of support/condemnation for an entirely benign and private matter (such as homosexuality) is a reprehensible one.
It's not an equal stance. They genuinely believe that you don't deserve equal rights if you are gay. You don't believe that they don't deserve equal rights because they are Mormon.
They are the assholes in that equation.
And no, I don't think religion is justification for limiting people's rights, sorry.
Really, no. I've left my country *and* my childhood religion and the latter was infinitely easier, even with the existential crises my atheism provoked for a time. Fortunately you don't have to go through an immigration process to leave your religion, or learn a new language, or become employable. It's so not the same thing that the comparison is hilarious to me.
Also, a single UU paying to support Prop 8 (I would love to see the odds on this one) - especially since tithing is not required and one can not be expelled or excommunicated from the UUs - is not remotely the same as a large number of believers giving donations to anti-gay proposition funds based on their scriptures' condemnation of homosexuality. Also, there is no unified UU "doctrine" - just principles - and no "Mother Church" of the UU faith, and no "prophets" of the UU church who can speak for any other UU or any deity or deity-like figure and thus compel members of the church to obey.
If the Mormon church were not an authoritarian hierarchy and each Mormon was free to do his or her own thing, believe his or her own thing, tithe or not tithe, be gay, and be a Mormon-hyphenate, this wouldn't be such a false equivocation.
Also, just because a sect has no problems now doesn't mean they're forever safe or good.
Also, I'm sorry that the world doesn't have any free place where the country doesn't do anything nobody disagrees with. If only the world understood that you're human and that humans aren't infallable nor do they necessarily reflect the sum of the whole.
This is funny, I never said any of this.
Yet everyone has assumed it.
Crazy world.
edit: This reply also applies to:
So many replies. You guys really hate religion.
Listen, somewhere along the lines I said "I know Mormons who go by the live and let live prophesy." in fact, one of these is an Aunt so I know them very well.
Then you guys jumped in and said "No, that's not possible, because of X they must be horrible people." in a sort of "Tough cookies the world is unfair."
So I reply with this.
I don't care how hard it is or what you have to do. You don't agree with something your country did but I'm holding you morally culpable.
Tough cookies, life is unfair.
Edit: the country analogy is no more coherent and no less a disanalogy the 18th time around.
"live an let live" is not a good thing when the person being let lived is being oppressed. If you applied it to any other civil rights, people would think you were a shitty person.
You can say it's a bad analogy all you want, it doesn't make it less true. Anyone can hold you morally culpable for the groups you associate with, regardless of whether you do it voluntarily or if you support or even know of what is being done.
Also, to me "Not supporting you" is the same as "Live and let live" in this case. I never said they are actively going against me but they aren't going "You shouldn't be gay, blah blah blah."
"Dick."
"Hey! LIVE AND LET LIVE, MAN."