Options

inter-religious marriage

123578

Posts

  • Options
    DoctorArchDoctorArch Curmudgeon Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Pata wrote: »
    Archgarth wrote: »
    I gave her church a shot, quickly realized it's batshit insane once I attended a Sunday school class where the lesson was marriage between different ethnicities and how bad it was,

    What the crap.

    I don't know what "LDS" church you went to, but it was not one teaching the actual doctrine of the church. It does not teach that, at all.

    It all depends on which ward you attend. In my case, one in Washington. And please do not insult my intelligence by insinuating that I must have not attended an actual LDS church building. It was The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, not the reformed church, not the fundamentalist church, but the one based out of Salt Lake City Utah. The most recent doctrine was passed down by President Kimball, who stated :
    The interrace marriage problem is not one of inferiority or superiority. It may be that your son is better educated and may be superior in his culture, and yet it may be on the other hand that she is superior to him. It is a matter of backgrounds. The difficulties and hazards of marriage are greatly increased where backgrounds are different. For a wealthy person to marry a pauper promises difficulties. For an ignoramus to marry one with a doctor’s degree promises difficulties, heartaches, misunderstandings, and broken marriages.

    When one considers marriage, it should be an unselfish thing, but there is not much selflessness when two people of different races plan marriage. They must be thinking selfishly of themselves. They certainly are not considering the problems that will beset each other and that will beset their children.

    If your son thinks he loves this girl, he would not want to inflict upon her loneliness and unhappiness; and if he thinks that his affection for her will solve all her problems, he should do some more mature thinking.

    We are unanimous, all of the Brethren, in feeling and recommending that Indians marry Indians, and Mexicans marry Mexicans; the Chinese marry Chinese and the Japanese marry Japanese; that the Caucasians marry the Caucasians, and the Arabs marry Arabs.

    From Spencer W. Kimball, The Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball

    What makes this entire idea intellectually & morally bankrupt is that for all of the high-talk surrounding "the sake of the children" in an interracial marriage, the church has no problem with people adopting children from a different ethnicity. While this isn't "official" doctrine per se, it is a lesson from one of the prophets of the church, and as such, is viewed as important and "from God," but with the ability to quickly say "it's not official doctrine" when it is questioned by people outside the church.

    DoctorArch on
    Switch Friend Code: SW-6732-9515-9697
  • Options
    PataPata Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    I've been in several wards and never seen that brought up

    It sounds more to me like he was saying that it's best to avoid cultural strife, remember he was around in an era when there was a lot of racial tension, less a "keep away from other races" and more a "try and keep the peace"

    In my years in the church I've never heard the issue of race even brought up, except for the occasional "we are all children of god and are equal" lesson.

    Heck, there are several inter-racial couples in my ward, and nobody ever looked twice.

    Really, it sounds like they misinterpreted the whole issue and need to be set straight.

    Pata on
    SRWWSig.pngEpisode 5: Mecha-World, Mecha-nisim, Mecha-beasts
  • Options
    DoctorArchDoctorArch Curmudgeon Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Pata wrote: »
    I've been in several wards and never seen that brought up

    It sounds more to me like he was saying that it's best to avoid cultural strife, remember he was around in an era when there was a lot of racial tension, less a "keep away from other races" and more a "try and keep the peace"

    In my years in the church I've never heard the issue of race even brought up, except for the occasional "we are all children of god and are equal" lesson.

    Heck, there are several inter-racial couples in my ward, and nobody ever looked twice.

    Really, it sounds like they misinterpreted the whole issue and need to be set straight.

    That may be so, but considering the entire church's historical (and continuing considering they have yet to correct the lineage of Cain doctrine) attitude towards anybody who wasn't white & delightsome, I am inclined to believe that the leanings are far more racially-motivated than anything else.

    DoctorArch on
    Switch Friend Code: SW-6732-9515-9697
  • Options
    geckahngeckahn Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    I think the government should be able to forcefully remove children from their homes if they are being raised in an environment in which they are not taught to believe what the government deems acceptable.

    Because . . its child abuse.

    geckahn on
  • Options
    PataPata Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    geckahn wrote: »
    I think the government should be able to forcefully remove children from their homes if they are being raised in an environment in which they are not taught to believe what the government deems acceptable.

    Because . . its child abuse.

    Can't have those dangerous thoughts can we.

    We'll teach em right.
    Dangerous thoughts are as follows:

    -Religious thoughts
    -Anti Religious thoughts
    -Thoughts leaning towards the right
    -Thoughts leaning towards the left
    -Belief in Creationism
    -Belief in evolution
    -Believing that Adam Sandlers was ever funny.

    Pata on
    SRWWSig.pngEpisode 5: Mecha-World, Mecha-nisim, Mecha-beasts
  • Options
    RedThornRedThorn Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    geckahn wrote: »
    I think the government should be able to forcefully remove children from their homes if they are being raised in an environment in which they are not taught to believe what the government deems acceptable.

    Because . . its child abuse.

    The government has too many cases where the parents are beating the crap out of their children on a regular basis to sift through as is, adding a buttload of cases based on a subjective "I don't like what parent A is teaching his/her children, you should take them away" basis would harm the governments ability to prevent actual physical abuse. Not to mention all the damage forcefully removing children from their parents can do.

    RedThorn on
    League of Legends: Drokmir
    Steam: Drokmir
  • Options
    geckahngeckahn Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    RedThorn wrote: »
    geckahn wrote: »
    I think the government should be able to forcefully remove children from their homes if they are being raised in an environment in which they are not taught to believe what the government deems acceptable.

    Because . . its child abuse.

    The government has too many cases where the parents are beating the crap out of their children on a regular basis to sift through as is, adding a buttload of cases based on a subjective "I don't like what parent A is teaching his/her children, you should take them away" basis would harm the governments ability to prevent actual physical abuse. Not to mention all the damage forcefully removing children from their parents can do.

    Laced with sarcasm dude.

    geckahn on
  • Options
    RedThornRedThorn Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    geckahn wrote: »
    RedThorn wrote: »
    geckahn wrote: »
    I think the government should be able to forcefully remove children from their homes if they are being raised in an environment in which they are not taught to believe what the government deems acceptable.

    Because . . its child abuse.

    The government has too many cases where the parents are beating the crap out of their children on a regular basis to sift through as is, adding a buttload of cases based on a subjective "I don't like what parent A is teaching his/her children, you should take them away" basis would harm the governments ability to prevent actual physical abuse. Not to mention all the damage forcefully removing children from their parents can do.

    Laced with sarcasm dude.

    I'm bad at detecting sarcasm on the internet, sorry. D:

    RedThorn on
    League of Legends: Drokmir
    Steam: Drokmir
  • Options
    Wonder_HippieWonder_Hippie __BANNED USERS regular
    edited June 2008
    Konova wrote: »
    ...so called creationist museums...

    No, the Creation Museum set up by AiG in Kentucky. I fear you aren't aware of this, and that I may be bringing it to your attention. Please, don't do anything rash.

    Wonder_Hippie on
  • Options
    DarkCrawlerDarkCrawler Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Belief in Creationism is, really, really, stupid...but it's really not illegal.

    Trust me, I'd love nothing more then to force every creationist to go through a mandatory course of "Your beliefs are absolutely retarded, and this is why", but it would not really be ethical. Just...let them be retarded as long as it doesn't effect your own life in any way, or brings any real harm to any other person (being stupid, as annoying it is, is not really that harmful).

    Of course, internet is naturally the free zone where I am going to tell said retards how absolutely retarded they are in painstaking detail...but we all do that, eh?

    DarkCrawler on
  • Options
    KonovaKonova Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Konova wrote: »
    ...so called creationist museums...

    No, the Creation Museum set up by AiG in Kentucky. I fear you aren't aware of this, and that I may be bringing it to your attention. Please, don't do anything rash.

    Wouldn't want to become a fanatic, gotcha...

    Should've broadened it to include things like teaching Creationism in school, etc.

    Well, they're hoping to expand, at least.

    Following directions from that blog, anyone up for a Homo tour of the Creation Museum?

    Konova on
    "It's not murder, it's surprise death!"
  • Options
    Burden of ProofBurden of Proof You three boys picked a beautiful hill to die on. Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    I find it amusing that Hippy said that he hoped his conversation with the family might have triggered something in the children's heads. I only find this amusing, because it reminded me of one of the reasons I really got deep into the church for a little while. It wasn't that their logical arguments were so mind-bogglingly convincing but that they were very accepting and kind people.

    I can't reasonably say whether or not he portrayed himself in an "accepting and kind" manner while berating the beliefs of these people, but I can say that he probably did nothing but gently push them back towards their established beliefs. Especially if it was the shouting match he made it sound like.

    Burden of Proof on
  • Options
    reVersereVerse Attack and Dethrone God Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    I find it amusing that Hippy said that he hoped his conversation with the family might have triggered something in the children's heads. I only find this amusing, because it reminded me of one of the reasons I really got deep into the church for a little while. It wasn't that their logical arguments were so mind-bogglingly convincing but that they were very accepting and kind people.

    I can't reasonably say whether or not he portrayed himself in an "accepting and kind" manner while berating the beliefs of these people, but I can say that he probably did nothing but gently push them back towards their established beliefs. Especially if it was the shouting match he made it sound like.

    But surely, while he was fanatically shrieking at them, they must've recognised that he was completely rational and logical. I mean, really, what else do you need?

    reVerse on
  • Options
    AndorienAndorien Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    I must've missed the part where he was "fanatically shrieking" at them.

    As for "berating beliefs", I don't see why silly beliefs shouldn't be open to complete ridicule. People often do it to scientologists, and most people hate those who are openly racist (and teach their children to be so as well). I don't see that much difference between these two and the beliefs that WH was criticizing.

    Andorien on
  • Options
    Burden of ProofBurden of Proof You three boys picked a beautiful hill to die on. Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    And I wasn't criticizing him for it, just stating a fact.

    While I'll disagree that it's appropriate to actively seek out families intent on raising their children to be religious, and then argue with them about it in such a dick-ish fashion, that's just an opinion. Not a popular one I suppose.

    Burden of Proof on
  • Options
    SithDrummerSithDrummer Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    It comes down to whether you want to convince the other party or just make yourself feel good. As I often re-quote when this line of discussion rears its head again:
    Jinnigan wrote: »
    i'd forgotten that conversations were all about winning, and that the best way to change someone's mind is to tell them bluntly that they are wrong and possibly retarded

    Now, that last part is probably not precisely what happened, but the message still applies.

    SithDrummer on
  • Options
    MikeManMikeMan Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    The key is to be polite in whatever you do.

    MikeMan on
  • Options
    ViolentChemistryViolentChemistry __BANNED USERS regular
    edited June 2008
    geckahn wrote: »
    I think the government should be able to forcefully remove children from their homes if they are being raised in an environment in which they are not taught to believe what the government deems acceptable.

    Because . . its child abuse.

    Wow, I never knew my dad was abusing me when he taught me to always question authority, especially the government's. And he's a fucking 'pub. I shall keep this one so I can flash it at parties.

    ViolentChemistry on
  • Options
    geckahngeckahn Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Jesus Christ. I was arguing that nobody has any business telling people how to raise their children.

    And than I posted that. connect. the. fucking. dots.

    geckahn on
  • Options
    ViolentChemistryViolentChemistry __BANNED USERS regular
    edited June 2008
    geckahn wrote: »
    Jesus Christ. I was arguing that nobody has any business telling people how to raise their children.

    And than I posted that. connect. the. fucking. dots.

    Fine, if you insist that it wasn't clever then I won't keep it. Have it your way.

    ViolentChemistry on
  • Options
    geckahngeckahn Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    geckahn wrote: »
    Jesus Christ. I was arguing that nobody has any business telling people how to raise their children.

    And than I posted that. connect. the. fucking. dots.

    Fine, if you insist that it wasn't clever then I won't keep it. Have it your way.

    Haha. As long as you know I wasn't serious, go for it.

    geckahn on
  • Options
    ViolentChemistryViolentChemistry __BANNED USERS regular
    edited June 2008
    geckahn wrote: »
    geckahn wrote: »
    Jesus Christ. I was arguing that nobody has any business telling people how to raise their children.

    And than I posted that. connect. the. fucking. dots.

    Fine, if you insist that it wasn't clever then I won't keep it. Have it your way.

    Haha. As long as you know I wasn't serious, go for it.

    Whatever communist.

    ViolentChemistry on
  • Options
    Wonder_HippieWonder_Hippie __BANNED USERS regular
    edited June 2008
    reVerse wrote: »
    I find it amusing that Hippy said that he hoped his conversation with the family might have triggered something in the children's heads. I only find this amusing, because it reminded me of one of the reasons I really got deep into the church for a little while. It wasn't that their logical arguments were so mind-bogglingly convincing but that they were very accepting and kind people.

    I can't reasonably say whether or not he portrayed himself in an "accepting and kind" manner while berating the beliefs of these people, but I can say that he probably did nothing but gently push them back towards their established beliefs. Especially if it was the shouting match he made it sound like.

    But surely, while he was fanatically shrieking at them, they must've recognised that he was completely rational and logical. I mean, really, what else do you need?

    You're both completely mischaracterizing my behavior. I love how one asshole says that I'm a fanatic and everybody else assumes that I'm a frothing-at-the-mouth lunatic without even knowing me. Good job. Now stop, assholes.

    Wonder_Hippie on
  • Options
    shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Hey now, no one was made any accusations that you can't control your spittle.

    shryke on
  • Options
    SamSam Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Cauld wrote: »
    Warbadger wrote: »
    This is actually a big problem for me. My long-time girlfriend is Catholic, and I was raised Catholic but am now agnostic/atheist (I'm still working it out). I'm pretty worried about our long-term situation, mainly because I am becoming more and more sure that I don't want a religious wedding and I definitely don't want any kids I ever have to be raised Catholic/Christian/whatever. This would probably be a big problem for her.

    Mostly I just completely ignore the issue and my girlfriend seems to be doing this as well. Every once in a while we talk about religion and I will bring up that she is sinning with me over and over and over (:winky:), but she just shrugs and says that she doesn't want to talk about it. It makes her uncomfortable to be reminded of it, I think, and she doesn't really want to put a lot of thought into what she actually believes right now. I'm sure this very scenario has been talked about millions of times here, so I won't go into any more detail.

    I don't know, jack, what you should do. In a situation like this one of you is going to have to make big concessions, and it sounds like it is going to be you saying 'it is fine to raise our kids Christian even though I do not believe in it'. If that is acceptable then I think it could work. In my case, I don't think I would be okay with it and that is why I am thinking that I won't end up marrying my girlfriend unless either I or she changes drastically on the issue. Who knows, though. I've changed quite a bit in the last few years so nothing is impossible.

    This is similar to a problem a friend of mine has. She's a about 50 years old and is divorced. She's Catholic and likes participating and going to Catholic mass. She tells me she consistently has a problem with being accepted into a church until they find out she's divorced, at which point she starts to feel like she's being excluded and looked down on. Especially since she hasn't had her marriage annulled. She tried to get it annulled, but I guess the local group that decides those things decided against her (It was a rather devistating decision, I think).

    This all came up because she was considering getting remarried to another Catholic. But apparently you can't 'remarry' unless your previous spouse died. So she had to get her previous marriage annulled. That presented a whole new set of issues for her, since she'd had children from that marriage and annulling them was like saying her children were mistakes, in a way.

    So, I asked her why she chooses to be part of an organization that doesn't respect her, or her wishes and seems to be making every attempt to exclude her. Her only real response was that she was brought up that way, and that her family are all Catholic, and that its kind of all she knows, religion wise. I've often wondered why she doesn't try out Protestant churches and maybe find one more accomidating, but in the end its her life and her religious beliefs, and not mine. So I don't push her. :|

    Why do people feel the need to grasp on to some nonexistant meaningless bullshit? Sometimes I think a lot of people's brains don't physically mature to the point where they can use logic over things they were told as a child.

    Or maybe they just never had any friends during adolescence and think any kind of questioning what they're told is for assholes.

    Sam on
  • Options
    SamSam Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    I guess it also has a lot to do with the way churches commandeered every form of human expression and molded it to their own purposes until a couple hundred years ago.

    Sam on
  • Options
    DoctorArchDoctorArch Curmudgeon Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Sam wrote: »
    I guess it also has a lot to do with the way churches commandeered every form of human expression and molded it to their own purposes until a couple hundred years ago.

    Some still attempt to do so.

    DoctorArch on
    Switch Friend Code: SW-6732-9515-9697
  • Options
    BamaBama Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Sam wrote: »
    Why do people feel the need to grasp on to some nonexistant meaningless bullshit?
    Ahem.

    (I just want to see if we can pick a new fallacy to obsess over because I'm getting tired of strawman)

    Bama on
  • Options
    SithDrummerSithDrummer Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Bama wrote: »
    Sam wrote: »
    Why do people feel the need to grasp on to some nonexistant meaningless bullshit?
    Ahem.

    (I just want to see if we can pick a new fallacy to obsess over because I'm getting tired of strawman)
    I agree wholeheartedly. On a side note, when did you stop raping children, Bama?

    SithDrummer on
  • Options
    BamaBama Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Bama wrote: »
    Sam wrote: »
    Why do people feel the need to grasp on to some nonexistant meaningless bullshit?
    Ahem.

    (I just want to see if we can pick a new fallacy to obsess over because I'm getting tired of strawman)
    I agree wholeheartedly. On a side note, when did you stop raping children, Bama?

    See there you're assuming that I stopped

    Bama on
  • Options
    MikeManMikeMan Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Bama wrote: »
    Sam wrote: »
    Why do people feel the need to grasp on to some nonexistant meaningless bullshit?
    Ahem.

    (I just want to see if we can pick a new fallacy to obsess over because I'm getting tired of strawman)

    It is a sad state of society when assuming something self-evident is seen as begging the question.

    MikeMan on
  • Options
    BamaBama Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    MikeMan wrote: »
    Bama wrote: »
    Sam wrote: »
    Why do people feel the need to grasp on to some nonexistant meaningless bullshit?
    Ahem.

    (I just want to see if we can pick a new fallacy to obsess over because I'm getting tired of strawman)

    It is a sad state of society when assuming something self-evident is seen as begging the question.

    It is a sad state of society when begging the question is seen as assuming something to be self-evident.

    Bama on
  • Options
    Burden of ProofBurden of Proof You three boys picked a beautiful hill to die on. Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    reVerse wrote: »
    I find it amusing that Hippy said that he hoped his conversation with the family might have triggered something in the children's heads. I only find this amusing, because it reminded me of one of the reasons I really got deep into the church for a little while. It wasn't that their logical arguments were so mind-bogglingly convincing but that they were very accepting and kind people.

    I can't reasonably say whether or not he portrayed himself in an "accepting and kind" manner while berating the beliefs of these people, but I can say that he probably did nothing but gently push them back towards their established beliefs. Especially if it was the shouting match he made it sound like.

    But surely, while he was fanatically shrieking at them, they must've recognised that he was completely rational and logical. I mean, really, what else do you need?

    You're both completely mischaracterizing my behavior. I love how one asshole says that I'm a fanatic and everybody else assumes that I'm a frothing-at-the-mouth lunatic without even knowing me. Good job. Now stop, assholes.

    I made no such insinuation.

    You said there was shouting and ranting going on, not me. I've made no assumptions beyond those which you've clearly stated yourself, and I certainly possess no deeply-ingrained image of you as a mouth-frothing lunatic.

    Stop looking for excuses to insult me, please. I'm not in the least bit interested.

    Burden of Proof on
  • Options
    MikeManMikeMan Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Bama wrote: »
    MikeMan wrote: »
    Bama wrote: »
    Sam wrote: »
    Why do people feel the need to grasp on to some nonexistant meaningless bullshit?
    Ahem.

    (I just want to see if we can pick a new fallacy to obsess over because I'm getting tired of strawman)

    It is a sad state of society when assuming something self-evident is seen as begging the question.

    It is a sad state of society when begging the question is seen as assuming something to be self-evident.

    It is a sad state of... okay I'm done.

    Basically while he was technically assuming the very thing he was asking about, so yes he was begging the question, it is not an "assumption" or some huge leap to talk about higher powers as non-existent meaningless bullshit, because that's exactly what they are.

    MikeMan on
  • Options
    Burden of ProofBurden of Proof You three boys picked a beautiful hill to die on. Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Am I the only one having trouble seeing how that isn't an assumption?

    Yeah, probably..

    Burden of Proof on
  • Options
    BamaBama Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Am I the only one having trouble seeing how that isn't an assumption?

    Yeah, probably..
    I was going to point out the meaning of "assumption," but he put it in quotes so maybe... ah hell, I don't know.

    Bama on
  • Options
    jeddy leejeddy lee Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    My god, what have I created!?

    jeddy lee on
    Backlog Challenge: 0%
    0/8

    PS2
    FF X replay

    PS3
    God of War 1&2 HD
    Rachet and Clank Future
    MGS 4
    Prince of Persia

    360
    Bayonetta
    Fable 3

    DS
    FF: 4 heroes of light
  • Options
    MikeManMikeMan Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Am I the only one having trouble seeing how that isn't an assumption?

    Yeah, probably..

    What is being assumed?

    MikeMan on
  • Options
    Wonder_HippieWonder_Hippie __BANNED USERS regular
    edited June 2008
    reVerse wrote: »
    I find it amusing that Hippy said that he hoped his conversation with the family might have triggered something in the children's heads. I only find this amusing, because it reminded me of one of the reasons I really got deep into the church for a little while. It wasn't that their logical arguments were so mind-bogglingly convincing but that they were very accepting and kind people.

    I can't reasonably say whether or not he portrayed himself in an "accepting and kind" manner while berating the beliefs of these people, but I can say that he probably did nothing but gently push them back towards their established beliefs. Especially if it was the shouting match he made it sound like.

    But surely, while he was fanatically shrieking at them, they must've recognised that he was completely rational and logical. I mean, really, what else do you need?

    You're both completely mischaracterizing my behavior. I love how one asshole says that I'm a fanatic and everybody else assumes that I'm a frothing-at-the-mouth lunatic without even knowing me. Good job. Now stop, assholes.

    I made no such insinuation.

    You said there was shouting and ranting going on, not me. I've made no assumptions beyond those which you've clearly stated yourself, and I certainly possess no deeply-ingrained image of you as a mouth-frothing lunatic.

    Stop looking for excuses to insult me, please. I'm not in the least bit interested.

    Get off your high horse when you're just making shit up, chief. It doesn't look good when you're wrong. Not only was there not shouting and ranting, the only people to suggest that there was were people that barely even know me on these boards, let alone in person. So back the fuck off. I never said such thing. You're making shit up.

    Wonder_Hippie on
  • Options
    geckahngeckahn Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    MikeMan wrote: »
    Bama wrote: »
    MikeMan wrote: »
    Bama wrote: »
    Sam wrote: »
    Why do people feel the need to grasp on to some nonexistant meaningless bullshit?
    Ahem.

    (I just want to see if we can pick a new fallacy to obsess over because I'm getting tired of strawman)

    It is a sad state of society when assuming something self-evident is seen as begging the question.

    It is a sad state of society when begging the question is seen as assuming something to be self-evident.

    It is a sad state of... okay I'm done.

    Basically while he was technically assuming the very thing he was asking about, so yes he was begging the question, it is not an "assumption" or some huge leap to talk about higher powers as non-existent meaningless bullshit, because that's exactly what they are.

    he's inserting value judgments that aren't necessarily correct.

    I mean, if you want to know the answer than psychology can anwser it for you. But sometihng like - belief in a higher power - might be more appropriate.

    geckahn on
Sign In or Register to comment.