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.
That's actually exactly what it does.
Hey, disagree all you want, it doesn't make it less true.
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.
I never said the people in question were oppressing anyone though, this still goes on the "You're a part of X group so you're responsible for what they do." tangent which for some reason only works when you're arguing it because, surprise surprise, each situation is unique in some way.
Sure, there are no real outs (unless you want to live on the run) in my situation but that doesn't matter, it's unfair.
This is, of course, assuming you're perfect and won't be committing your own errors.
We are assuming this right?
Sipex on
0
Options
CorehealerThe ApothecaryThe softer edge of the universe.Registered Userregular
"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."
This.
There's a difference between inaction because everyone should be allowed to live as they choose and inaction when people are being denied their right to live as they choose for whatever reason. You can't sit there and say that you won't get involved on such a stupid premise. And your not being intolerant of the other side if you stand up and say this is wrong.
Live and Let Live does not = I'll ignore injustice now kkthxbye.
"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."
Tell me, how much have you done to fix the problems currently plaguing the world? I need to know by what authority you judge.
No. We are saying that you have chosen to be part of X group. When you choose to be part of a group, you kind of are at least partially responsible for the group's actions. When there are many other options available, there is little excuse for not choosing one of the other options.
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.
That's actually exactly what it does.
Hey, disagree all you want, it doesn't make it less true.
I'm making a point. You're all being ignorant because you believe X and clearly won't listen to reason because you've found a logical out that you can keep parroting whenever someone disagrees with you.
You could concede and realise that sometimes we shouldn't hold someone responsible for the sum of the group, especially if they aren't actively supporting the group decision, putting down the victim in question and are probably too concerned with all the shit normal life throws at them to do anything.
realise that sometimes we shouldn't hold someone responsible for the sum of the group, especially if they aren't actively supporting the group decision, putting down the victim in question and are probably too concerned with all the shit normal life throws at them to do anything.
You have offered no evidence this is one of those times. This is not something that is not freely chosen or extremely hard to change. What you say also applies to the Nazi party.
No. We are saying that you have chosen to be part of X group. When you choose to be part of a group, you kind of are at least partially responsible for the group's actions. When there are many other options available, there is little excuse for not choosing one of the other options.
Most if not all the other options have a chance to be bad though.
Also, you think it's simple giving up your beliefs. Why? You're not applying any measure of understanding and just taking the high position because you're "in the right". Your cause supports good things while they supposively support bad things (Whether they do or not) so it doesn't matter, it should be easy to change.
Sipex on
0
Options
CorehealerThe ApothecaryThe softer edge of the universe.Registered Userregular
edited September 2010
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.
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.
That's actually exactly what it does.
Hey, disagree all you want, it doesn't make it less true.
I'm making a point. You're all being ignorant because you believe X and clearly won't listen to reason because you've found a logical out that you can keep parroting whenever someone disagrees with you.
You could concede and realise that sometimes we shouldn't hold someone responsible for the sum of the group, especially if they aren't actively supporting the group decision, putting down the victim in question and are probably too concerned with all the shit normal life throws at them to do anything.
That would be understanding though.
No, your big argument is that it's so haaaaaard to leave a religion, we don't understaaaaaaand, and I am telling you that no, no really it's not very hard, I've done it, and it was infinitely easier than an international relocation, which I have also done. You don't seem to understand that some people really value integrity and not being associated by choice to a group that one disagrees with on what is a pretty fundamental issue in real people's lives, especially when the party line of said group is to try and dismantle the civil rights of an oppressed minority.
It really is as easy as deciding not to support, financially or with membership, such a group. You're the person equivocating it with leaving a country, which has been pointed out time and time again is not even remotely the same thing, because you can change your mind and not be Catholic, or Mormon, or Muslim anymore. You cannot change your mind and cease to be American, or Canadian, or French.
Also lol to being so busy with life to just stop calling oneself a Mormon, attending church, and tithing.
No. We are saying that you have chosen to be part of X group. When you choose to be part of a group, you kind of are at least partially responsible for the group's actions. When there are many other options available, there is little excuse for not choosing one of the other options.
Most if not all the other options have a chance to be bad though.
Also, you think it's simple giving up your beliefs. Why? You're not applying any measure of understanding and just taking the high position because you're "in the right". Your cause supports good things while they supposively support bad things (Whether they do or not) so it doesn't matter, it should be easy to change.
We are not any more perfect then you, we simply don't think that, because human beings aren't perfect, we should ignore an obvious moral problem being perpetuated by religious bigotry.
realise that sometimes we shouldn't hold someone responsible for the sum of the group, especially if they aren't actively supporting the group decision, putting down the victim in question and are probably too concerned with all the shit normal life throws at them to do anything.
You have offered no evidence this is one of those times. This is not something that is not freely chosen or extremely hard to change. What you say also applies to the Nazi party.
My point is a bit disjointed, yes. I'm a tad passionate about the subject matter and the idea of supporting the guy who doesn't get support.
Also, I don't need proof. This all started because I provided an example of someone (many someones) I know who are like this and mormon. You all decided to jump on it because apparently religion is evil bad and anyone willingly associating themselves with it must be as well.
Also, the Nazi party would get the same out from me barring circumstances (which this has been about from my first post, circumstances). If you were a part of it but didn't agree with the horrible things they did (say, because you don't want to die in this case) I would give some leeway, yes.
Sipex on
0
Options
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
edited September 2010
Even if the UU wasn't available as an example, by default you don't have to be part of a church. Being non-religious is perfectly acceptable.
You cannot be a person unrelated to a country. Even assuming you make the (MUCH larger) step of moving from one bad country to another one, you can't get away from the fact that you have to be a citizen of somewhere. You don't have to be a follower of any religion. Being religious is a choice. Being a citizen is not. That is why (one of the reasons) your analogy is shit.
realise that sometimes we shouldn't hold someone responsible for the sum of the group, especially if they aren't actively supporting the group decision, putting down the victim in question and are probably too concerned with all the shit normal life throws at them to do anything.
You have offered no evidence this is one of those times. This is not something that is not freely chosen or extremely hard to change. What you say also applies to the Nazi party.
My point is a bit disjointed, yes. I'm a tad passionate about the subject matter and the idea of supporting the guy who doesn't get support.
Also, I don't need proof. This all started because I provided an example of someone (many someones) I know who are like this and mormon. You all decided to jump on it because apparently religion is evil bad and anyone willingly associating themselves with it must be as well.
Also, the Nazi party would get the same out from me barring circumstances (which this has been about from my first post, circumstances). If you were a part of it but didn't agree with the horrible things they did (say, because you don't want to die in this case) I would give some leeway, yes.
So they aren't completely evil bastards.
Still doesn't mean that they can't be assholes. If you, in this day and age, in a first world country, believe that someone doesn't deserve equal rights because of their gender, race, sexual orientation or whatever, you are an asshole in that respect. Sorry, we are too advanced as a society to cry "that was how I was raised, it is my religion abloobloobloo".
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.
This applies to my country example as well, although in the most extreme of circumstances there is the threat of persecution.
I mean, you could just live on the road and not pay taxes on anything, get your stuff illegally. Then you wouldn't be supporting any country. Huge risk though.
Sipex on
0
Options
CorehealerThe ApothecaryThe softer edge of the universe.Registered Userregular
realise that sometimes we shouldn't hold someone responsible for the sum of the group, especially if they aren't actively supporting the group decision, putting down the victim in question and are probably too concerned with all the shit normal life throws at them to do anything.
You have offered no evidence this is one of those times. This is not something that is not freely chosen or extremely hard to change. What you say also applies to the Nazi party.
My point is a bit disjointed, yes. I'm a tad passionate about the subject matter and the idea of supporting the guy who doesn't get support.
Also, I don't need proof. This all started because I provided an example of someone (many someones) I know who are like this and mormon. You all decided to jump on it because apparently religion is evil bad and anyone willingly associating themselves with it must be as well.
Also, the Nazi party would get the same out from me barring circumstances (which this has been about from my first post, circumstances). If you were a part of it but didn't agree with the horrible things they did (say, because you don't want to die in this case) I would give some leeway, yes.
I'm a Buddhist, and I don't think religion is entirely evil. It becomes evil when it is forced on others and used to justify bigotry and inequality. Which is unfortunately too often the case, especially among Christian protestants.
Giving leeway to someone in a murderous political organization is one thing, because leaving the Nazis usually involved dying, but that doesn't excuse the fact that one chose to join them and support them and put them in a position to oppress others. You choose who you associate with, at the end of the day, even under intimidation.
realise that sometimes we shouldn't hold someone responsible for the sum of the group, especially if they aren't actively supporting the group decision, putting down the victim in question and are probably too concerned with all the shit normal life throws at them to do anything.
You have offered no evidence this is one of those times. This is not something that is not freely chosen or extremely hard to change. What you say also applies to the Nazi party.
My point is a bit disjointed, yes. I'm a tad passionate about the subject matter and the idea of supporting the guy who doesn't get support.
Also, I don't need proof. This all started because I provided an example of someone (many someones) I know who are like this and mormon. You all decided to jump on it because apparently religion is evil bad and anyone willingly associating themselves with it must be as well.
Also, the Nazi party would get the same out from me barring circumstances (which this has been about from my first post, circumstances). If you were a part of it but didn't agree with the horrible things they did (say, because you don't want to die in this case) I would give some leeway, yes.
So they aren't completely evil bastards.
Still doesn't mean that they can't be assholes. If you, in this day and age, in a first world country, believe that someone doesn't deserve equal rights because of their gender, race, sexual orientation or whatever, you are an asshole in that respect. Sorry, we are too advanced as a society to cry "that was how I was raised, it is my religion abloobloobloo".
Simple as that.
I never said these people thought the others don't deserve the same rights. You are assuming again.
They simply just can't support because it's not in their beliefs. They're all gung-ho for you getting what you need in the terms of rights. How about "Doesn't agree with" instead of "Not support" or even "You can be gay and have anything you need, I just don't think you'll get into heaven"
realise that sometimes we shouldn't hold someone responsible for the sum of the group, especially if they aren't actively supporting the group decision, putting down the victim in question and are probably too concerned with all the shit normal life throws at them to do anything.
You have offered no evidence this is one of those times. This is not something that is not freely chosen or extremely hard to change. What you say also applies to the Nazi party.
My point is a bit disjointed, yes. I'm a tad passionate about the subject matter and the idea of supporting the guy who doesn't get support.
Also, I don't need proof. This all started because I provided an example of someone (many someones) I know who are like this and mormon. You all decided to jump on it because apparently religion is evil bad and anyone willingly associating themselves with it must be as well.
Also, the Nazi party would get the same out from me barring circumstances (which this has been about from my first post, circumstances). If you were a part of it but didn't agree with the horrible things they did (say, because you don't want to die in this case) I would give some leeway, yes.
I'm a Buddhist, and I don't think religion is entirely evil. It becomes evil when it is forced on others and used to justify bigotry and inequality. Which is unfortunately too often the case, especially among Christian protestants.
Giving leeway to someone in a murderous political organization is one thing, because leaving the Nazis usually involved dying, but that doesn't excuse the fact that one chose to join them and support them and put them in a position to oppress others. You choose who you associate with, at the end of the day, even under intimidation.
I would take that you agree with my country example then? That one can be held morally culpable for things their country does?
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.
I question how "voluntary" it actually is. Most people are born, and then adopt whatever imaginary friend mom and dad had and are then raised in a community where they are indoctrinated that this is the way things are.
If you are going to hang the Mormons for this, than every member of every religion must be held accountable for their religions actions.
nstf on
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Also, the Nazi party would get the same out from me barring circumstances (which this has been about from my first post, circumstances). If you were a part of it but didn't agree with the horrible things they did (say, because you don't want to die in this case) I would give some leeway, yes.
So you're only mormon because you've been threatened with the gas chamber?
I never said these people thought the others don't deserve the same rights. You are assuming again.
They simply just can't support because it's not in their beliefs. They're all gung-ho for you getting what you need in the terms of rights. How about "Doesn't agree with" instead of "Not support" or even "You can be gay and have anything you need, I just don't think you'll get into heaven"
But they do believe it. If you put a vote in front of them that said "can gays get married, yes or no", they would sign no.
That makes them assholes that don't support equal rights. Ambivalence doesn't change that fact.
thinking that homosexuality is a sin and gays don't get to their heaven just makes them twice the dicks.
In order to continue this I present to you a question. Anyone can answer it.
We have a family of Mormons. They believe they need to be Mormon to go to heaven (as most religions do). Now, they find out that their religion has done something bad (:(). They feel the need for religion to go to heaven. What do they do?
And no, "Drop their beliefs and realise that there is no God" is not an option.
Sipex on
0
Options
CorehealerThe ApothecaryThe softer edge of the universe.Registered Userregular
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.
I question how "voluntary" it actually is. Most people are born, and then adopt whatever imaginary friend mom and dad had and are then raised in a community where they are indoctrinated that this is the way things are.
If you are going to hang the Mormons for this, than every member of every religion must be held accountable for their religions actions.
Some people are born into religion, some are converted later. Eventually down the line however, the individual has to choose if they agree or not with the religion and it's actions. It's harder to do when they grow up in it and know nothing else, but they are still accountable. Especially since, being in that religion, they have the ability to try and change it from the inside, and failing that, leave.
Also, the Nazi party would get the same out from me barring circumstances (which this has been about from my first post, circumstances). If you were a part of it but didn't agree with the horrible things they did (say, because you don't want to die in this case) I would give some leeway, yes.
So you're only mormon because you've been threatened with the gas chamber?
Nice try, but no. Cous just had an example I wanted to answer.
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.
I question how "voluntary" it actually is. Most people are born, and then adopt whatever imaginary friend mom and dad had and are then raised in a community where they are indoctrinated that this is the way things are.
If you are going to hang the Mormons for this, than every member of every religion must be held accountable for their religions actions.
I don't have a problem with this as an atheist.
Couscous on
0
Options
CorehealerThe ApothecaryThe softer edge of the universe.Registered Userregular
In order to continue this I present to you a question. Anyone can answer it.
We have a family of Mormons. They believe they need to be Mormon to go to heaven (as most religions do). Now, they find out that their religion has done something bad (:(). They feel the need for religion to go to heaven. What do they do?
And no, "Drop their beliefs and realise that there is no God" is not an option.
If Heaven exists, do you think it would reward blind faith or doing the right thing?
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.
I question how "voluntary" it actually is. Most people are born, and then adopt whatever imaginary friend mom and dad had and are then raised in a community where they are indoctrinated that this is the way things are.
If you are going to hang the Mormons for this, than every member of every religion must be held accountable for their religions actions.
Ah, but the reason Catholics and Mormons take the heat for this is because they are top-down authoritarian structures, rather than loosely-assembled congregations, or communities of individuals who are free to interpret texts for themselves. Since you can point to a structure, a person or body of persons, and say "the fish rots from the head" it becomes more ominous for such a body to wield such power over the church entire.
Other religions' followers do shitty things, but it's harder to pin the individual's shitty things on the religion as a whole because they are not representative or acting on behalf of the religion as a whole - because there's no authority to point to. Other than the invisible friend, of course.
I never said these people thought the others don't deserve the same rights. You are assuming again.
They simply just can't support because it's not in their beliefs. They're all gung-ho for you getting what you need in the terms of rights. How about "Doesn't agree with" instead of "Not support" or even "You can be gay and have anything you need, I just don't think you'll get into heaven"
But they do believe it. If you put a vote in front of them that said "can gays get married, yes or no", they would sign no.
That makes them assholes that don't support equal rights. Ambivalence doesn't change that fact.
thinking that homosexuality is a sin and gays don't get to their heaven just makes them twice the dicks.
I think we're talking two different things. I'm talking "Morally Culpable" which was presented a few pages back against me and you're presenting "Dicks" which is more of an opinion of a person.
I'm not going to take away your right to think someone is a dick.
In order to continue this I present to you a question. Anyone can answer it.
We have a family of Mormons. They believe they need to be Mormon to go to heaven (as most religions do). Now, they find out that their religion has done something bad (:(). They feel the need for religion to go to heaven. What do they do?
And no, "Drop their beliefs and realise that there is no God" is not an option.
Leave the church, practice their faith in private?
Attempt to stay in the church and try to change it's ways from the inside?
Collect a group of like-minded individuals, form their own sect of Mormonism?
In order to continue this I present to you a question. Anyone can answer it.
We have a family of Mormons. They believe they need to be Mormon to go to heaven (as most religions do). Now, they find out that their religion has done something bad (:(). They feel the need for religion to go to heaven. What do they do?
And no, "Drop their beliefs and realise that there is no God" is not an option.
If Heaven exists, do you think it would reward blind faith or doing the right thing?
Personally? Doing the right thing. Part of the reason I left.
These people aren't like that though, they believe that faith (they wouldn't call it 'Blind Faith') is the true path.
Two different opinions though. If there is a heaven neither of our opinions will matter except for whatever the 'right' one would be.
I never said these people thought the others don't deserve the same rights. You are assuming again.
They simply just can't support because it's not in their beliefs. They're all gung-ho for you getting what you need in the terms of rights. How about "Doesn't agree with" instead of "Not support" or even "You can be gay and have anything you need, I just don't think you'll get into heaven"
But they do believe it. If you put a vote in front of them that said "can gays get married, yes or no", they would sign no.
That makes them assholes that don't support equal rights. Ambivalence doesn't change that fact.
thinking that homosexuality is a sin and gays don't get to their heaven just makes them twice the dicks.
I think we're talking two different things. I'm talking "Morally Culpable" which was presented a few pages back against me and you're presenting "Dicks" which is more of an opinion of a person.
I'm not going to take away your right to think someone is a dick.
Well no, they aren't morally culpable unless they have a chance to affect the situation and they don't do it.
In order to continue this I present to you a question. Anyone can answer it.
We have a family of Mormons. They believe they need to be Mormon to go to heaven (as most religions do). Now, they find out that their religion has done something bad (:(). They feel the need for religion to go to heaven. What do they do?
And no, "Drop their beliefs and realise that there is no God" is not an option.
First, why is that not an option?
Second, not even going so far as the dropping beliefs bit, I've faced this, and to be truly honest with yourself you have to first ask, well, if my religion has done something bad, and I have always believed that my religion could not do something bad, one of these statements is wrong. You have to ask yourself that and decide what the truth is, and you have to be open to the possibility that your conclusion might be that your religion is not good. Maybe you will still conclude that you need religion to get to heaven, but not this religion.
You have to be willing to examine that possibility, though, or you're lying to yourself to feel better. Which you can certainly do - I did for a long time - but you should also be honest with yourself that you just can't face that question yet, and take your lumps when people associate you with the awfulness that your religion brings about.
In order to continue this I present to you a question. Anyone can answer it.
We have a family of Mormons. They believe they need to be Mormon to go to heaven (as most religions do). Now, they find out that their religion has done something bad (:(). They feel the need for religion to go to heaven. What do they do?
And no, "Drop their beliefs and realise that there is no God" is not an option.
Leave the church, practice their faith in private?
Not an option, these people need a church. It's ingraned.
Attempt to stay in the church and try to change it's ways from the inside?
Better answer, this is acceptable. Teaching little mormon kids that gays aren't all that bad would be a good place to start.
Collect a group of like-minded individuals, form their own sect of Mormonism?
Good answer but where does it end? Eventually someone does something 'bad' under the name of the religion then your sect creates a new sect?
I never said these people thought the others don't deserve the same rights. You are assuming again.
They simply just can't support because it's not in their beliefs. They're all gung-ho for you getting what you need in the terms of rights. How about "Doesn't agree with" instead of "Not support" or even "You can be gay and have anything you need, I just don't think you'll get into heaven"
But they do believe it. If you put a vote in front of them that said "can gays get married, yes or no", they would sign no.
That makes them assholes that don't support equal rights. Ambivalence doesn't change that fact.
thinking that homosexuality is a sin and gays don't get to their heaven just makes them twice the dicks.
I think we're talking two different things. I'm talking "Morally Culpable" which was presented a few pages back against me and you're presenting "Dicks" which is more of an opinion of a person.
I'm not going to take away your right to think someone is a dick.
Well no, they aren't morally culpable unless they have a chance to affect the situation and they don't do it.
Well then we agree for the most part. This is all I ask.
Sipex on
0
Options
CorehealerThe ApothecaryThe softer edge of the universe.Registered Userregular
In order to continue this I present to you a question. Anyone can answer it.
We have a family of Mormons. They believe they need to be Mormon to go to heaven (as most religions do). Now, they find out that their religion has done something bad (:(). They feel the need for religion to go to heaven. What do they do?
And no, "Drop their beliefs and realise that there is no God" is not an option.
If Heaven exists, do you think it would reward blind faith or doing the right thing?
Personally? Doing the right thing. Part of the reason I left.
These people aren't like that though, they believe that faith (they wouldn't call it 'Blind Faith') is the true path.
Two different opinions though. If there is a heaven neither of our opinions will matter except for whatever the 'right' one would be.
If they don't question their faith and it's ability to get them into Heaven, then it's blind faith. The right way is not always the easy way.
In order to continue this I present to you a question. Anyone can answer it.
We have a family of Mormons. They believe they need to be Mormon to go to heaven (as most religions do). Now, they find out that their religion has done something bad (:(). They feel the need for religion to go to heaven. What do they do?
And no, "Drop their beliefs and realise that there is no God" is not an option.
First, why is that not an option?
Second, not even going so far as the dropping beliefs bit, I've faced this, and to be truly honest with yourself you have to first ask, well, if my religion has done something bad, and I have always believed that my religion could not do something bad, one of these statements is wrong. You have to ask yourself that and decide what the truth is, and you have to be open to the possibility that your conclusion might be that your religion is not good. Maybe you will still conclude that you need religion to get to heaven, but not this religion.
You have to be willing to examine that possibility, though, or you're lying to yourself to feel better. Which you can certainly do - I did for a long time - but you should also be honest with yourself that you just can't face that question yet, and take your lumps when people associate you with the awfulness that your religion brings about.
I've got nothing to say against this, it's well thought out and presented without inflammatory remarks. I agree.
Sipex on
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
In order to continue this I present to you a question. Anyone can answer it.
We have a family of Mormons. They believe they need to be Mormon to go to heaven (as most religions do). Now, they find out that their religion has done something bad (:(). They feel the need for religion to go to heaven. What do they do?
And no, "Drop their beliefs and realise that there is no God" is not an option.
The question is, do they need to be Mormon™, or believe in the book of Mormon?
Same goes for Catholics, or any hierarchical system of belief.
Leaving the church doesn't make you less worthy in the eyes of your lord, it just means you aren't going to associate with or give money to assholes.
Atomika on
0
Options
CorehealerThe ApothecaryThe softer edge of the universe.Registered Userregular
In order to continue this I present to you a question. Anyone can answer it.
We have a family of Mormons. They believe they need to be Mormon to go to heaven (as most religions do). Now, they find out that their religion has done something bad (:(). They feel the need for religion to go to heaven. What do they do?
And no, "Drop their beliefs and realise that there is no God" is not an option.
The question is, do they need to be Mormon™, or believe in the book of Mormon?
Same goes for Catholics, or any hierarchical system of belief.
Leaving the church doesn't make you less worthy in the eyes of your lord, it just means you aren't going to associate with or give money to assholes.
If anything, your better off in his eyes for not agreeing with them.
Posts
That's actually exactly what it does.
Hey, disagree all you want, it doesn't make it less true.
I never said the people in question were oppressing anyone though, this still goes on the "You're a part of X group so you're responsible for what they do." tangent which for some reason only works when you're arguing it because, surprise surprise, each situation is unique in some way.
Sure, there are no real outs (unless you want to live on the run) in my situation but that doesn't matter, it's unfair.
This is, of course, assuming you're perfect and won't be committing your own errors.
We are assuming this right?
This.
There's a difference between inaction because everyone should be allowed to live as they choose and inaction when people are being denied their right to live as they choose for whatever reason. You can't sit there and say that you won't get involved on such a stupid premise. And your not being intolerant of the other side if you stand up and say this is wrong.
Live and Let Live does not = I'll ignore injustice now kkthxbye.
Tell me, how much have you done to fix the problems currently plaguing the world? I need to know by what authority you judge.
I'm making a point. You're all being ignorant because you believe X and clearly won't listen to reason because you've found a logical out that you can keep parroting whenever someone disagrees with you.
You could concede and realise that sometimes we shouldn't hold someone responsible for the sum of the group, especially if they aren't actively supporting the group decision, putting down the victim in question and are probably too concerned with all the shit normal life throws at them to do anything.
That would be understanding though.
You have offered no evidence this is one of those times. This is not something that is not freely chosen or extremely hard to change. What you say also applies to the Nazi party.
Most if not all the other options have a chance to be bad though.
Also, you think it's simple giving up your beliefs. Why? You're not applying any measure of understanding and just taking the high position because you're "in the right". Your cause supports good things while they supposively support bad things (Whether they do or not) so it doesn't matter, it should be easy to change.
Not leaving a Christian denomination even though it is against gay equality is wrong, because there is no moral base for rejecting gay equality.
No, your big argument is that it's so haaaaaard to leave a religion, we don't understaaaaaaand, and I am telling you that no, no really it's not very hard, I've done it, and it was infinitely easier than an international relocation, which I have also done. You don't seem to understand that some people really value integrity and not being associated by choice to a group that one disagrees with on what is a pretty fundamental issue in real people's lives, especially when the party line of said group is to try and dismantle the civil rights of an oppressed minority.
It really is as easy as deciding not to support, financially or with membership, such a group. You're the person equivocating it with leaving a country, which has been pointed out time and time again is not even remotely the same thing, because you can change your mind and not be Catholic, or Mormon, or Muslim anymore. You cannot change your mind and cease to be American, or Canadian, or French.
Also lol to being so busy with life to just stop calling oneself a Mormon, attending church, and tithing.
We are not any more perfect then you, we simply don't think that, because human beings aren't perfect, we should ignore an obvious moral problem being perpetuated by religious bigotry.
My point is a bit disjointed, yes. I'm a tad passionate about the subject matter and the idea of supporting the guy who doesn't get support.
Also, I don't need proof. This all started because I provided an example of someone (many someones) I know who are like this and mormon. You all decided to jump on it because apparently religion is evil bad and anyone willingly associating themselves with it must be as well.
Also, the Nazi party would get the same out from me barring circumstances (which this has been about from my first post, circumstances). If you were a part of it but didn't agree with the horrible things they did (say, because you don't want to die in this case) I would give some leeway, yes.
You cannot be a person unrelated to a country. Even assuming you make the (MUCH larger) step of moving from one bad country to another one, you can't get away from the fact that you have to be a citizen of somewhere. You don't have to be a follower of any religion. Being religious is a choice. Being a citizen is not. That is why (one of the reasons) your analogy is shit.
So they aren't completely evil bastards.
Still doesn't mean that they can't be assholes. If you, in this day and age, in a first world country, believe that someone doesn't deserve equal rights because of their gender, race, sexual orientation or whatever, you are an asshole in that respect. Sorry, we are too advanced as a society to cry "that was how I was raised, it is my religion abloobloobloo".
Simple as that.
This applies to my country example as well, although in the most extreme of circumstances there is the threat of persecution.
I mean, you could just live on the road and not pay taxes on anything, get your stuff illegally. Then you wouldn't be supporting any country. Huge risk though.
I'm a Buddhist, and I don't think religion is entirely evil. It becomes evil when it is forced on others and used to justify bigotry and inequality. Which is unfortunately too often the case, especially among Christian protestants.
Giving leeway to someone in a murderous political organization is one thing, because leaving the Nazis usually involved dying, but that doesn't excuse the fact that one chose to join them and support them and put them in a position to oppress others. You choose who you associate with, at the end of the day, even under intimidation.
I never said these people thought the others don't deserve the same rights. You are assuming again.
They simply just can't support because it's not in their beliefs. They're all gung-ho for you getting what you need in the terms of rights. How about "Doesn't agree with" instead of "Not support" or even "You can be gay and have anything you need, I just don't think you'll get into heaven"
I would take that you agree with my country example then? That one can be held morally culpable for things their country does?
I question how "voluntary" it actually is. Most people are born, and then adopt whatever imaginary friend mom and dad had and are then raised in a community where they are indoctrinated that this is the way things are.
If you are going to hang the Mormons for this, than every member of every religion must be held accountable for their religions actions.
So you're only mormon because you've been threatened with the gas chamber?
But they do believe it. If you put a vote in front of them that said "can gays get married, yes or no", they would sign no.
That makes them assholes that don't support equal rights. Ambivalence doesn't change that fact.
thinking that homosexuality is a sin and gays don't get to their heaven just makes them twice the dicks.
We have a family of Mormons. They believe they need to be Mormon to go to heaven (as most religions do). Now, they find out that their religion has done something bad (:(). They feel the need for religion to go to heaven. What do they do?
And no, "Drop their beliefs and realise that there is no God" is not an option.
Some people are born into religion, some are converted later. Eventually down the line however, the individual has to choose if they agree or not with the religion and it's actions. It's harder to do when they grow up in it and know nothing else, but they are still accountable. Especially since, being in that religion, they have the ability to try and change it from the inside, and failing that, leave.
Nice try, but no. Cous just had an example I wanted to answer.
I don't have a problem with this as an atheist.
If Heaven exists, do you think it would reward blind faith or doing the right thing?
Ah, but the reason Catholics and Mormons take the heat for this is because they are top-down authoritarian structures, rather than loosely-assembled congregations, or communities of individuals who are free to interpret texts for themselves. Since you can point to a structure, a person or body of persons, and say "the fish rots from the head" it becomes more ominous for such a body to wield such power over the church entire.
Other religions' followers do shitty things, but it's harder to pin the individual's shitty things on the religion as a whole because they are not representative or acting on behalf of the religion as a whole - because there's no authority to point to. Other than the invisible friend, of course.
I think we're talking two different things. I'm talking "Morally Culpable" which was presented a few pages back against me and you're presenting "Dicks" which is more of an opinion of a person.
I'm not going to take away your right to think someone is a dick.
Leave the church, practice their faith in private?
Attempt to stay in the church and try to change it's ways from the inside?
Collect a group of like-minded individuals, form their own sect of Mormonism?
Personally? Doing the right thing. Part of the reason I left.
These people aren't like that though, they believe that faith (they wouldn't call it 'Blind Faith') is the true path.
Two different opinions though. If there is a heaven neither of our opinions will matter except for whatever the 'right' one would be.
Well no, they aren't morally culpable unless they have a chance to affect the situation and they don't do it.
First, why is that not an option?
Second, not even going so far as the dropping beliefs bit, I've faced this, and to be truly honest with yourself you have to first ask, well, if my religion has done something bad, and I have always believed that my religion could not do something bad, one of these statements is wrong. You have to ask yourself that and decide what the truth is, and you have to be open to the possibility that your conclusion might be that your religion is not good. Maybe you will still conclude that you need religion to get to heaven, but not this religion.
You have to be willing to examine that possibility, though, or you're lying to yourself to feel better. Which you can certainly do - I did for a long time - but you should also be honest with yourself that you just can't face that question yet, and take your lumps when people associate you with the awfulness that your religion brings about.
Not an option, these people need a church. It's ingraned.
Better answer, this is acceptable. Teaching little mormon kids that gays aren't all that bad would be a good place to start.
Good answer but where does it end? Eventually someone does something 'bad' under the name of the religion then your sect creates a new sect?
Well then we agree for the most part. This is all I ask.
If they don't question their faith and it's ability to get them into Heaven, then it's blind faith. The right way is not always the easy way.
I've got nothing to say against this, it's well thought out and presented without inflammatory remarks. I agree.
The question is, do they need to be Mormon™, or believe in the book of Mormon?
Same goes for Catholics, or any hierarchical system of belief.
Leaving the church doesn't make you less worthy in the eyes of your lord, it just means you aren't going to associate with or give money to assholes.
If anything, your better off in his eyes for not agreeing with them.