Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home/public/Sources/Load.php(225) : runtime-created function on line 3

Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home/public/Sources/Load.php(225) : runtime-created function on line 3
Print Page - [Blog] I do not hate you.

I Read This

I Drew This => Today's Editorial => Topic started by: purplecat on November 11, 2008, 17:46:22 EST



Title: [Blog] I do not hate you.
Post by: purplecat on November 11, 2008, 17:46:22 EST
http://www.idrewthis.org/2008/11/i-do-not-hate-you-open-letter.html (http://www.idrewthis.org/2008/11/i-do-not-hate-you-open-letter.html)

In groups and out groups.

I know people who are really into football. They gripe and moan about the manager's decisions. Complain about the lack of skill of the players, high ticket prices, the refreshments at the stadium and the new away kit. They enjoy moaning about their team, and to listen to them, you'd think they couldn't stand that bunch of losers.

But it's their team.

If you happen to support someone else, and even think about joining in on the criticism, well you might as well just rip your own head off to save trouble all round.



Title: Re: [Blog] I do not hate you.
Post by: Himatsu on November 11, 2008, 18:43:36 EST
IMO, Eagle doesn't owe anyone an apology for that blog post. This fan apparently had no problem with her church spreading deceitful propaganda and slandering LGBT citizens, but criticizing the church, its beliefs, and its actions are unacceptable. Maybe she should be upset with her church instead, for allowing these remarks to be true.


Title: Re: [Blog] I do not hate you.
Post by: Eon on November 11, 2008, 18:53:17 EST
IMO, Eagle doesn't owe anyone an apology for that blog post. This fan apparently had no problem with her church spreading deceitful propaganda and slandering LGBT citizens, but criticizing the church, its beliefs, and its actions are unacceptable. Maybe she should be upset with her church instead, for allowing these remarks to be true.

Nevertheless, in doing so, Eagle has clarified her previous blog entry and more or less put herself on the moral highground. I agree with you though that an apology was not necessarily owed, but that doesn't make it a bad thing that she gave one. It's never a bad idea to clarify your thoughts, especially if they're being misinterpreted.

Furthermore, I do think she made an excellent point about how a Mormon is more annoyed with someone criticising the actions of their church than the enactment of a policy they claim to oppose.


Title: Re: [Blog] I do not hate you.
Post by: Orb2069 on November 11, 2008, 20:09:08 EST
The question, IMO, is "Why are you letting these people take your money and do this crap with it?" - I mean,  if I paid money into a union that was using it to push this kind of crap, you can bet I'd be talking to the steward about it - And pushing for a vote at the next meeting to boot.

(Digging to find out a dollar amount, I found This (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/11/why-the-lds-att.html), which - if true - makes things worse, and a crapload more sinister.  Seriously - When your boyfriend religion starts forcing you to stop seeing vote against your friends,  it's time to consider moving out on - Can anybody in California find a place to house ex-Mormons?


Title: Re: [Blog] I do not hate you.
Post by: Eon on November 12, 2008, 10:14:35 EST
The question, IMO, is "Why are you letting these people take your money and do this crap with it?" - I mean,  if I paid money into a union that was using it to push this kind of crap, you can bet I'd be talking to the steward about it - And pushing for a vote at the next meeting to boot.

(Digging to find out a dollar amount, I found This (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/11/why-the-lds-att.html), which - if true - makes things worse, and a crapload more sinister.  Seriously - When your boyfriend religion starts forcing you to stop seeing vote against your friends,  it's time to consider moving out on - Can anybody in California find a place to house ex-Mormons?

My knowledge of the Mormon church is limited, but as I understand it, they can excommunicate people for violating church doctrine. Since religion is largely based on the fear of hellfire and damnation for disobedience and/or apostasy, it is very difficult (socially and emotionally) for a religionist to deconvert, particularly if they were raised from birth to believe that said religion is the truth. As I understand it, Mormons also believe that the president of their church is a prophet whom God speaks through, so being excommunicated essentially means you've been damned to hell (or at least barred from ever entering any of the levels of heaven that Mormonism speaks of).

Of course, if I'm wrong about Mormonism, somebody please correct me. I'm going on what I've heard from ex-Mormons.


Title: Re: [Blog] I do not hate you.
Post by: WolvesOfTheNight on November 13, 2008, 22:51:53 EST
You can take a look at their 1999 Handbook of Instructions for Stake Presidencies and Bishoprics (http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Mormon_Church_Handbook_of_Instructions_%281999%29). Check section 10, Church Discipline. Find the subsection "When a Disciplinary Council Is Mandatory." My PDF viewer thinks that is the bottom of page 111. One item in this section is apostasy, of which they list 3 types. The first type is "Repeatedly act in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its leaders." And they specifically state that "Priesthood leaders must take disciplinary action against apostates..."

It is also worth noting that further on they state that "Failure to Comply with Some Church Standards" is listed under When a Disciplinary Council Is Not Necessary. Also, they state that "A disciplinary council should not be held to discipline or threaten members who do not comply with the Word of Wisdom or whose transgressions consist of omissions, such as failure to pay tithing, inactivity in the Church, or inattention to Church duties.

And under the Possible Decisions section they do list excommunication as one of four possible outcomes of a disciplinary council. So from that handbook it sounds like if a Mormon pubically opposed the Mormon Church then they could face a Disciplinary Council and end up being excommunication. But it sounds to me like they do it on a case by case basis. And you probably can find more on the topic in that handbook, but I have better things to do.


Title: Re: [Blog] I do not hate you.
Post by: boring7 on November 15, 2008, 21:25:09 EST
The official rules on excommunication and stuff
Even if that weren't the case, it is like the Reverend Wright thing was for Obama, you don't just abandon family. 

Mormons are a tad insular, they have to be with their rather different religion, rather different society, Utah's geography, and the like.  Even if you couldn't be excommunicated, if most of your friends, contacts, family, and that necessary social "us" is Mormon then you care about staying with them even if they often annoy you.  Like the dear sweet co-worker of mine who filled the role of "grandma" to just about everyone in the office but who honestly believed that Homosexuals were just selfish perverts. 

I am guessing the Mormon who felt so attacked by Liberal Eagle didn't give money, didn't go to the rallies, and just kind of downplayed and subjectified the whole anti-gay rhetoric thing. 

It's one of those things about psychology that I don't think has a proper word for because it's hard to describe.  Basically there is a predisposition in most humans to "forgive more" when someone is close to you.  In 2003 Chavez the socialist tried to introduce Legislature expanding his powers and it was described by the right-wing pundits as, "an evil dictator making his move to become a tyrant."  When Bush was doing the same sort of thing with grand, sweeping power-grabs they simply laughed it off and felt, "well he'd only going to take it up because it is necessary, and will put it back down once the threat has passed."  When Old man withers, who you never got on with, talks about a poor-quality repair as "n*****-rigged" he's a racist but when Grandma refers to a slingshot as a "n*****-shooter" she's just using the traditional-if-improper term. 

Funnily enough I have overheard rather long conversations between two people trying to rationalize their use of those terms.  They appealed to tradition, to usefulness "but it's such a great term, you know exactly what it means when you say it, I grew up with it," etc.  These were not particularly racist folk, (all their bigotry was unconscious and/or covert) but they would still rationalize to themselves that a term containing a word that has ended people's careers was acceptable. 

I can understand the argument that words shouldn't be given such power, but this was not the argument, they felt it was a wrong and naughty word but would accept it in that context because it was something they grew up with.  Just as a young Mormon who voted for Obama and personally voted against Prop 8 will not feel at odds and opposed to the church that fought so hard to get prop 8 passed. 

But I'm just guessing.  The link Orb2069 posted was quite different from the official line I've been hearing about the Mormon Church playing a soft hand but letting the direct planning and actions be carried out by congregants rather than church officials.  I was also under the impression the Mormon Church is also not as organized as the Catholic church, falling somewhere between Catholic "Papal infallibility" and Protestant "we are lucky if we have high-ranking officials that meet with each other." 

But hey, what do I know?  I'm from central Texas, where we make allusions to Catholics not actually being Christian. 


Title: Re: [Blog] I do not hate you.
Post by: Heq on November 16, 2008, 10:37:25 EST
The Mormon church is actually more cohesive then the catholic church.

Papal infallability is a rare thing which occurs solely during ex Cathadra, and was designed (by and large) to stop people bitching about things that really do need to be changed or issues which were beyond debate (as in:  you may choose to believe X, but that is beyond the scope of the church, perhaps if it's important to you Buddhism may float your boat).

Currently, as almost always, a tenuos balance of power exists within the Church, as the power-cardinals just do not see eye to eye.  This means that it takes a lot of negotiating to get anything to statement.  Some Cardinals (one of whom almost became pope) don't even follow the church on the issue of birth control (the signature issue which has literally a thousand years of theology behind it, and if the rest of the Church's teachings correct, would be a logical outgrowth).

Mormons also have the advantage of being pretty much exclusively north american, which means you avoid all that fractiousness.

Benedict will be dead soon, and then it's time for a mexican pope!  Viva la Rasa!


Title: Re: [Blog] I do not hate you.
Post by: Laserlips on December 03, 2008, 03:12:44 EST
Surprisingly, although we are an American-founded and based church, there are more Mormons outside the U.S. inside, and the growth rates indicate that this will only become more so.

And yes, excommunication is a bad thing, and it doesn't happen very often, but part of being a member is accepting the leadership of the church.  If you don't believe the leaders of the Mormon church are prophets of God, then you aren't a Mormon, regardless of your baptismal status.

I know a bit about "disciplinary councils," as well.  Mormon leadership, especially at local levels, is a lay clergy.  Nobody gets paid or brought in from outside except those who are called on missions, and missionaries--old and young--hold zero leadership authority unless there is nobody else.

That means that it's a matter of dealing with your neighbors in a religious context, rather than having the Church Police clap you in irons.  A bit less sinister, I hope.

Excommunication sounds dire, but the truth is simply that if you show by your actions that you don't want to be a Mormon, then you get what you want.


Title: Re: [Blog] I do not hate you.
Post by: Medivh on December 03, 2008, 04:15:47 EST
That means that it's a matter of dealing with your neighbors in a religious context, rather than having the Church Police clap you in irons.  A bit less sinister, I hope.

Not enormously. "Church Police" usually have to follow rules and regulations. "Dealing with your neighbours" usually involves kangaroo courts and other nastiness.

Excommunication sounds dire, but the truth is simply that if you show by your actions that you don't want to be a Mormon, then you get what you want.

I notice that you don't actually point out how excommunication isn't dire.


Title: Re: [Blog] I do not hate you.
Post by: Laserlips on December 03, 2008, 04:34:39 EST
If you refuse to act like a Mormon, you stop being one.  Where is the direness?  What have you lost?

And if you head for social stigma I'll say: yes, there is social stigma for making poor choices.  This is a good thing.  It's how we teach the next generation not to make poor choices.


Title: Re: [Blog] I do not hate you.
Post by: Medivh on December 03, 2008, 06:31:06 EST
Your community, support net, and potentially sanity. When parents openly disown their children for holding differing beliefs... I don't see how you can think of this as a good thing.


Title: Re: [Blog] I do not hate you.
Post by: Himatsu on December 03, 2008, 08:10:50 EST
[quote author=Laserlips link=topic=4182.msg93046#msg93046 date=1228296879And if you head for social stigma I'll say: yes, there is social stigma for making poor choices.  This is a good thing.  It's how we teach the next generation not to make poor choices.
[/quote]

Leaving the mormon faith is only a bad choice in the minds of devout mormons. Given that these are the same people who think that Joseph Smith had only the noblest intentions when he collected his 30+ wives, perhaps mormons aren't the sort of people we should trust concerning good and poor choices.


Title: Re: [Blog] I do not hate you.
Post by: hitchkitty on December 03, 2008, 10:12:13 EST
And if you head for social stigma I'll say: yes, there is social stigma for making poor choices.  This is a good thing.  It's how we teach the next generation not to make poor choices.

No, there is social stigma for making unpopular choices.  The right choice is not always the popular one.

...y'know, I can't believe I'm having to explain that distinction to a Mormon.


Title: Re: [Blog] I do not hate you.
Post by: Eon on December 03, 2008, 10:59:10 EST
Himatsu and Hitchkitty, well said.


Title: Re: [Blog] I do not hate you.
Post by: Laserlips on December 05, 2008, 02:45:44 EST
Well, I think that you folks have strange definitions of what communities are, and how they work.  If you actively tear down a community, you lose your standing in that community, and rightfully so.  Communities only work when people at least pretend to cooperate.

That said, nobody should be disowned for being excommunicated.  That, however, is a problem with families, not religious communities (and it certainly isn't exclusive to Mormonism.)


Title: Re: [Blog] I do not hate you.
Post by: Himatsu on December 05, 2008, 04:35:07 EST
Leaving the mormon faith does not count as "tearing down a community", except in the minds of mormons, because a mormon who leaves the faith is one less thrall for the "elders" and "prophet" to control and extort.


Title: Re: [Blog] I do not hate you.
Post by: Laserlips on December 05, 2008, 11:27:49 EST
But hey, it's not like you have any preconceived notions about it, or anything.  You are the pinnacle of rational objectivity on the matter.

But you have actually stumbled upon a factually correct statement: Leaving a community is not the same as tearing it down.  Happily, one is never excommunicated for leaving the faith, unless they specifically ask to have it be done.

There is a world of difference between :
1.  Deciding that you do not believe the teachings of the church and leaving it; and,
2.  Deciding that the church is an enemy to be fought, and actively doing so.

In the second case, you are quite literally turning on the community and tearing it down.  If you wish to leave the church, you are perfectly free to do so, and although you will get quite a few baked goods from (sometimes excessively) nice people trying to get you to come back, the church will never do anything more than mildly annoying to achieve that goal.  (Say, knocking on your door, or calling you, which they'd do anyway--but if you tell them to stop doing that as well, they will do so.)

If you fight against the church from within, then the church has every right to say, "You hate us, you're trying to destroy what we have built, and so unless you stop you cannot be part of us anymore."  You have no obligation to feed a tapeworm lodged in your intestine; it takes from you until it kills you.  Similarly, if members of a community actively and willfully attack it, then they are not contributing members but a disease.

Whether you believe that the doctrines of the Mormon church are true is, in this case, irrelevant.  These rules about communities would apply just as well to Muslims, Jews, Catholics, or The Esoteric Brethren of the Elucidated Elbow, whom I made up just now based on a memory of a Terry Pratchett book.


Title: Re: [Blog] I do not hate you.
Post by: Himatsu on December 05, 2008, 11:54:51 EST
That's funny, because us non-mormons have been trying to tell your church the very same thing, and yet you continue to stick your nose into other people's lives and force us to live your way--but that's DIFFERENT, it's gaaaaawd's laaaaw!


Title: Re: [Blog] I do not hate you.
Post by: Laserlips on December 05, 2008, 12:33:09 EST
Um... I don't know what specifically you are addressing, but you're wrong about me, and you are gibbering.


Title: Re: [Blog] I do not hate you.
Post by: Himatsu on December 05, 2008, 14:03:51 EST
If you fight against the church from within, then the church has every right to say, "You hate us, you're trying to destroy what we have built, and so unless you stop you cannot be part of us anymore."  You have no obligation to feed a tapeworm lodged in your intestine; it takes from you until it kills you.

Is this clear enough for you, or am I still "gibbering"? Maybe I should have stuck "And it came to pass" on the beginning.


Title: Re: [Blog] I do not hate you.
Post by: Heq on December 05, 2008, 15:09:21 EST
Himatsu, to be fair it -is- different.

One is a fundemantally self-reflective -I- come to the conclusion -I- am homosexual, whereas one is fundementally theocentric -God- makes rules, and while my god may disagree with your god, neither one of us takes personal responsability for the moralities of these divine entities.


Title: Re: [Blog] I do not hate you.
Post by: wodan46 on December 05, 2008, 19:24:54 EST
But hey, it's not like you have any preconceived notions about it, or anything.  You are the pinnacle of rational objectivity on the matter.
Well duh.  That's me, after all.

But you have actually stumbled upon a factually correct statement: Leaving a community is not the same as tearing it down.  Happily, one is never excommunicated for leaving the faith, unless they specifically ask to have it be done.

There is a world of difference between :
1.  Deciding that you do not believe the teachings of the church and leaving it; and,
2.  Deciding that the church is an enemy to be fought, and actively doing so.
Fair enough, though it is dependent on us believing that those who are excommunicated are done only on the grounds of 2.

If you fight against the church from within, then the church has every right to say, "You hate us, you're trying to destroy what we have built, and so unless you stop you cannot be part of us anymore."  You have no obligation to feed a tapeworm lodged in your intestine; it takes from you until it kills you.  Similarly, if members of a community actively and willfully attack it, then they are not contributing members but a disease.
Oh, how easily your statement could be applied to any situation.  For example, what if I said that Mormons, for their inability to adhere to the standards of society, and their active efforts to spread their beliefs to others, are a tapeworm and should be eradicated?  What if I said that religion in general is a memetic tapeworm of an idea that encourages the stagnation of the mind, and should be eradicated?  Its being done on the same grounds as you are, whether you wish to admit it.

However, our government doesn't enforce its beliefs on Mormons, asking in return only that the Mormons not enforce their beliefs on government.  However, that is exactly what Mormons are doing.

Whether you believe that the doctrines of the Mormon church are true is, in this case, irrelevant.  These rules about communities would apply just as well to Muslims, Jews, Catholics, or The Esoteric Brethren of the Elucidated Elbow, whom I made up just now based on a memory of a Terry Pratchett book.
That's why I view all religions as tapeworms on society that should be eradicated for the benefit of civilization.  Be thankful that people like me don't have the manpower to enforce our beliefs on others without asking like Mormons are currently doing.


Title: Re: [Blog] I do not hate you.
Post by: Manufacturing Dissent on December 06, 2008, 09:03:09 EST
But hey, it's not like you have any preconceived notions about it, or anything.  You are the pinnacle of rational objectivity on the matter.

But you have actually stumbled upon a factually correct statement: Leaving a community is not the same as tearing it down.  Happily, one is never excommunicated for leaving the faith, unless they specifically ask to have it be done.

There is a world of difference between :
1.  Deciding that you do not believe the teachings of the church and leaving it; and,
2.  Deciding that the church is an enemy to be fought, and actively doing so.

In the second case, you are quite literally turning on the community and tearing it down.  If you wish to leave the church, you are perfectly free to do so, and although you will get quite a few baked goods from (sometimes excessively) nice people trying to get you to come back, the church will never do anything more than mildly annoying to achieve that goal.  (Say, knocking on your door, or calling you, which they'd do anyway--but if you tell them to stop doing that as well, they will do so.)

If you fight against the church from within, then the church has every right to say, "You hate us, you're trying to destroy what we have built, and so unless you stop you cannot be part of us anymore."  You have no obligation to feed a tapeworm lodged in your intestine; it takes from you until it kills you.  Similarly, if members of a community actively and willfully attack it, then they are not contributing members but a disease.

Whether you believe that the doctrines of the Mormon church are true is, in this case, irrelevant.  These rules about communities would apply just as well to Muslims, Jews, Catholics, or The Esoteric Brethren of the Elucidated Elbow, whom I made up just now based on a memory of a Terry Pratchett book.

If I may ask, does the Church of LDS have a dotrine in place for those who wish to enact legitimate reform within the faith?  To many people legitimate dissent can come across as trying to "tear down" the community.  I would point to the example you yourself have given as positive change, I cannot imagine the leaders of your church woke up one day and deciding on a whim that black people should be allowed full membership rights.  Stagnation is just as, if not more, damaging to a faith as unfocused change.


Title: Re: [Blog] I do not hate you.
Post by: Laserlips on December 06, 2008, 13:48:59 EST
There is a very fine line there, and it's not one I'm always comfortable with, but one of the basic principles of the church is that the Prophet speaks for God.  You are perfectly free to disagree with God, you just can't also retain the privileges of church membership.

That isn't to say that the things the Prophet speaks about are generally very controversial.  Gay marriage is the first big effort like this in a long time--the only other historical instances I know about are opposing the Civil Rights Amendment and the end of Prohibition.  (And no, I don't much like the sound of that first one--but I don't know the context of the decision, either.)

All of that being said, there is also a difference between "The Prophet" and the man who holds that office.  There are many statements recorded by Joseph Smith or Brigham Young, where they said something REALLY strange, and then some people assume it's doctrine and teach it in Sunday School and other people assume it's official Church teaching and attack it.  (For example, Smith thought that there may have been people on the Moon, and Young sincerely believed that interracial marriage was a sin.)

The leaders of the Church aren't perfect, but when they clearly say that they are speaking for God, the choice is: in or out.  There isn't any middle ground to pick and choose which revelations are okay; it's all or nothing.  And that's how it should be.  If God really is speaking, then he isn't going to only be accurate a percentage of the time; if he's not speaking through the leaders of the church, then you should get out of the church and find where the truth really is.

And just to clarify something: the Book of Mormon teaches that a group of people's skin was changed in color to separate them from the people who were supposed to be obeying the commandments.  If you've ever READ the book, however, you'll note that often, the "cursed" people were much more righteous and good than the "blessed" people.  In fact, one of the big figures of the book is Samuel the Lamanite, a prophet who was called from the "cursed" people to the "blessed" people to tell them to repent because Christ was going to be born soon.  (The "blessed" people tried to kill him.)  Nowhere in the book does it say that black people are going to hell.  It says that wicked people are going to be unhappy, no matter what color their skin is.

Furthermore, Joseph Smith did not tell slaves to suck it up and stay slaves--he said that war was a bad thing, and civil war was worse.  He didn't encourage slaves to run away, he encouraged slave owners to set them free.  He wanted a peaceful, legal solution to the issue of slavery.  I guess that darn Republican warmonger Lincoln had a better idea, although it was also a lot bloodier.


Title: Re: [Blog] I do not hate you.
Post by: Medivh on December 07, 2008, 18:51:06 EST
That said, nobody should be disowned for being excommunicated.  That, however, is a problem with families, not religious communities (and it certainly isn't exclusive to Mormonism.)

I'd disagree that it's not at the feet of the community. It is also at the feet of the family, but the community has effectively said "You're not one of Us. Get out of here." It's startlingly hard for a family to stay in that community and maintain that they haven't disowned the excommunicated member.

As you say, this isn't a particularly Mormon thing, but neither is it non-Mormon.

There is a world of difference between :
1.  Deciding that you do not believe the teachings of the church and leaving it; and,
2.  Deciding that the church is an enemy to be fought, and actively doing so.

False dichotomy. We're talking about people who've said "no, I don't want to take rights off other people. I don't want to meddle in affairs of non-believers." This is not fighting the church, yet the church takes offense.

(The LDS church, though, has taken offense so often that they could re-do the agrarian revolution...)

If you fight against the church from within, then the church has every right to say, "You hate us, you're trying to destroy what we have built, and so unless you stop you cannot be part of us anymore."  You have no obligation to feed a tapeworm lodged in your intestine; it takes from you until it kills you.  Similarly, if members of a community actively and willfully attack it, then they are not contributing members but a disease.

Nice dehumanisation, there. Do you do that with apostates too?

The leaders of the Church aren't perfect, but when they clearly say that they are speaking for God, the choice is: in or out.

The lawmakers aren't perfect either, but they clearly say "you can be tax exempt, or you can be a political entity". The current "prophet" clearly wants it both ways.

And, no, this isn't a solely Mormon thing either.


Title: Re: [Blog] I do not hate you.
Post by: Laserlips on December 08, 2008, 02:10:01 EST
Then I guess we'll have to pay taxes.  Boo hoo.  Worse things have happened.  If paying taxes is the price for believing and speaking as we do, then I'm pretty sure that we'll pay them.  Render unto Caesar, and so forth.

Diseases are made up of living things, just like bodies are.  The difference is between cells that work together, and cells which are free individuals and do their own thing.  We call those cancer, and they kill bodies.  It is possible to be a cancerous person in your society, and if you refuse to stop the correct answer is expulsion.  Cancer cells are still alive, just as much as other cells are.  The way they behave makes them dangerous.

Mostly, though, you need to understand that you don't get to change the rules of a community because you don't like them.  Follow the rules or leave.  I don't know why that choice bothers you.

There's a third choice, of course: follow the rules which you don't like for now, and work from within the community to understand and fix the problems that do exist.  That one is the correct choice.


Title: Re: [Blog] I do not hate you.
Post by: Medivh on December 08, 2008, 02:42:10 EST
Diseases are made up of living things, just like bodies are.  The difference is between cells that work together, and cells which are free individuals and do their own thing.  We call those cancer, and they kill bodies.  It is possible to be a cancerous person in your society, and if you refuse to stop the correct answer is expulsion.  Cancer cells are still alive, just as much as other cells are.  The way they behave makes them dangerous.

Actually, unless you can produce children at an alarming rate, you can't be considered cancerous. Nor can you be considered viral unless you insert yourself into people, generate hundreds of copies, and then pull a full Alien on them coming out. Considering someone to be bacterial... well... People who give food to the homeless also fill that description. Nowhere near as bad as you might have though, huh?

To be fully frank with you, I'm not going to let you get away with dehumanising people who do things you don't like. That way lies bad things.

Mostly, though, you need to understand that you don't get to change the rules of a community because you don't like them.  Follow the rules or leave.  I don't know why that choice bothers you.

Then you haven't been reading.


Title: Re: [Blog] I do not hate you.
Post by: Heq on December 08, 2008, 18:40:58 EST
Medivh, that way lies great things.

Once you dehumanize everyone and realize there is nothing special or particularly praiseworthy about the species, life gets a lot less burdensome.  Then you can become an oil magnate and kill a man with a bowling pin, just like in There Will Be Blood, which makes one long for the day you could kill huckster's with bowling pins, which I think was the point of the movie.


Title: Re: [Blog] I do not hate you.
Post by: Himatsu on December 08, 2008, 18:58:10 EST
Nice dehumanisation, there. Do you do that with apostates too?

Of course. Apostates are terrible people because personal failure (to follow the prophet, to be a good wife, to not be gay...) is the only reason anyone ever leaves the faith, or so mormons would have you believe.


Title: Re: [Blog] I do not hate you.
Post by: Heq on December 08, 2008, 19:03:08 EST
To be fair, there aren't many movements which survive for long which expressly condone leaving the movement.

Generally why you don't see many gatherings of misanthropes.


Title: Re: [Blog] I do not hate you.
Post by: Manufacturing Dissent on December 08, 2008, 19:08:58 EST
To be fair, there aren't many movements which survive for long which expressly condone leaving the movement.

Generally why you don't see many gatherings of misanthropes.

My brother once wanted to found an organization called "Misanthropes for World Peace", partially so that he could identify himself as a "card-carrying misanthrope".


Title: Re: [Blog] I do not hate you.
Post by: Conservative Cat on December 10, 2008, 11:05:26 EST
Okay, as much as I love the philosophical debate here, let's get some facts straight.

1) While the leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints encouraged people to support Prop. 8, and there were many who did so, no one was forced to do anything about Prop. 8.  No one was forced to give of their resources, time, or labor to support Prop. 8, and there was no threat of excommunication for not supporting, or even working against Prop. 8.

2) As a matter of fact, there were plenty of Mormons who didn't support Prop. 8, and worked against it.  The most famous that I'm aware of is Barbara Young (wife of Steve Young), who actively campaigned against Prop. 8.  In fact, I would suggest doing a Google search just on "Mormons against Prop. 8", and you'll find plenty.  And, as far as I know, there haven't been reports of people being excommunicated solely because they didn't support, or worked against Prop. 8.

3) Finally, if you investigate the church further, you'll find that there are many people of all political persuasions on the full spectrum.  A good example is that you have a Democrat from Idaho who is currently the Senate Pro Temp (Harry Reid) and you have a Republican from Utah who is currently the senior Senator from Utah (Orrin Hatch).  It's safe to say that there are all sorts of Mormons who believe in different things.  Although, if a Mormon didn't believe in the Book of Mormon, would he continue to call himself a Mormon...

Anyway, while I'm all for a good debate, let's make sure that our facts are straight.


Title: Re: [Blog] I do not hate you.
Post by: Heq on December 10, 2008, 15:05:05 EST
To be fair to Hatch, he's been a fairly good republican as far as the language of logical rights.  Whatever one's political position and his reasons for it, I consider the Hatch amendment to have been one of the very few really good piecs of legistlation during the Bush administration.


Title: Re: [Blog] I do not hate you.
Post by: Laserlips on December 10, 2008, 22:03:34 EST
C. Cat, thanks for saying what I would say in a calmer and more reasonable manner.

The difference between Reid, Romney, and Hatch is easily observable--and yet none of them are excommunicated, although I hear that Reid has to deal with some sticky situations from some misguided members of his predominantly Conservative faith.  (Something like, a man of your political views should not be a worthy member of the Church.  This is NEVER stated by the Church itself--only stupid and nearsighted members of that faith.  I wish they didn't exist, but every group's got 'em.  Hell, I might be one of them--although I've never sent hate mail to Harry Reid.)

The only reason to leave a faith is because you don't believe it anymore, or never did.  If you believe it to be true, you stay and fix the problems.  If you believe it to be false, you get out.  It's as simple as that.

Yeah, there is societal backlash for attacking your society.  If you think that can be stopped, you should probably apply for citizenship in some other group than Humanity.


Title: Re: [Blog] I do not hate you.
Post by: boring7 on December 18, 2008, 13:44:25 EST
Yeah, there is societal backlash for attacking your society.  If you think that can be stopped, you should probably apply for citizenship in some other group than Humanity.

Thus, when attacking American society by bashing gays, your church takes some heat. 

I do SO love the easy ones...


Title: Re: [Blog] I do not hate you.
Post by: Icedragon on January 05, 2009, 16:56:49 EST
That's why I view all religions as tapeworms on society that should be eradicated for the benefit of civilization.  Be thankful that people like me don't have the manpower to enforce our beliefs on others without asking like Mormons are currently doing.

I'm no fan of organized religion, but that's going a little far dude.


Title: Re: [Blog] I do not hate you.
Post by: wodan46 on January 05, 2009, 22:19:01 EST
That's why I view all religions as tapeworms on society that should be eradicated for the benefit of civilization.  Be thankful that people like me don't have the manpower to enforce our beliefs on others without asking like Mormons are currently doing.

I'm no fan of organized religion, but that's going a little far dude.
Kind of the point.  I was illustrating that allowing a faction to have their own private views of what they consider an ideal society be made into law is less fun when it isn't your faction, but the one who would enjoy it if your faction permanently stopped existing.

I can assure you, if there was a way to eradicate religion that wouldn't cause tremendous damage to society in one form or another, I would advocate that way.


Title: Re: [Blog] I do not hate you.
Post by: rwpikul on January 05, 2009, 23:37:25 EST
I can assure you, if there was a way to eradicate religion that wouldn't cause tremendous damage to society in one form or another, I would advocate that way.

Well, there does seem to be a strong inverse relationship between level of science education and level of religiosity.


Title: Re: [Blog] I do not hate you.
Post by: Medivh on January 06, 2009, 02:09:14 EST
I must admit I see catechism in school as child abuse. Then again, I get very precious about things like tricking people into thinking that there's only one way. Or putting artificial consequences on going with a different train of thought.

Part of the reason for separation of church and state in most countries is because religion is the self-revocation of liberty. Because it's done by the self, it can be undone (in most cases (http://allforfreedom.blogspot.com/2008/12/been-persecuted.html)). A state religion means that it's not a self-revocation any more, but a state-sponsored revocation.

Basically, I don't care what you believe until it interferes with someone else. Including your children. Hence the opening sentence of this post. "Your right to swing your fist ends before my nose" is agreed to by most. But the logical extension that many seem to think is wrong is "your right to believe ends before the point where you force me to 'believe'". Too many people assume that physical liberty is a right, but that mental liberty is shameful. The only reason to think this way is religion, because this line of thought is one of the very few ways that religion has of keeping people from leaving in and of themselves.

The logical extension of that is the ability to believe in contradiction to the evidence of your senses ("Atheists are all angry and mean! Christians are all happy and loving!"), and the inability to conceive of morality outside of faith. Removal of the "group" requirement kills the need for such a thought, as well as the groupthink.


Title: Re: [Blog] I do not hate you.
Post by: Heq on January 06, 2009, 02:18:48 EST
Unfortunately, I think we've got a biological imperative to this groupthink, and we quickly replace one religious movement with another (such as enviromentalism, which is quickly taking on a lot of religious traits) and merely change the cards in the house.  People enjoy submitting themselves to a groupthink (to a large extent), so to a large extent the negative realities of religion cannot be avoided.


Title: Re: [Blog] I do not hate you.
Post by: wodan46 on January 06, 2009, 13:14:24 EST
Unfortunately, I think we've got a biological imperative to this groupthink, and we quickly replace one religious movement with another (such as enviromentalism, which is quickly taking on a lot of religious traits) and merely change the cards in the house.  People enjoy submitting themselves to a groupthink (to a large extent), so to a large extent the negative realities of religion cannot be avoided.
Correct, of which is the reason why trying to destroy religion is pointless.  To do so would require people to stop doing groupthink.  However, religion can be contained and limited.  While all religions are viral entities that seek only to propagate themselves, some are more damaging than others, and the degree to which a given type can damage is highly variable.  By keeping religion out of schools, making it harder to indoctrinate kids, and encouraging the gentler religions (like Darkeforce) over the nastier religions (like Fundamentalist Christians).


Title: Re: [Blog] I do not hate you.
Post by: Current on January 06, 2009, 14:03:18 EST
In Britain the gossip column of the Sunday Telegraph gives some interesting news (http://www.debatableland.com/the_debatable_land/2009/01/transatlantic-differences.html).  As you probably know the highest group in an opposition party is the shadow cabinet.  On Sunday a member of the Conservative shadow cabinet had a civil partnership, this is the second member of that body to have done so.  This news was so significant it was relegated to the tittle-tattle column.

So, don't get too frustrated folks.  Change can happen here, and it doesn't require violence.


Title: Re: [Blog] I do not hate you.
Post by: rogue-kun on January 06, 2009, 18:02:20 EST
By keeping religion out of schools, making it harder to indoctrinate kids, and encouraging the gentler religions (like Darkeforce) over the nastier religions (like Fundamentalist Christians).

Except that in many areas they are some of the best schools. I no complaints about the education I received at my private catholic schools (Marist tradition). My only problems i had with it are elements on all the current western school system, but reduces in mt school compared to others.


Title: Re: [Blog] I do not hate you.
Post by: Medivh on January 06, 2009, 19:26:23 EST
By keeping religion out of schools, making it harder to indoctrinate kids, and encouraging the gentler religions (like Darkeforce) over the nastier religions (like Fundamentalist Christians).

Except that in many areas they are some of the best schools. I no complaints about the education I received at my private catholic schools (Marist tradition). My only problems i had with it are elements on all the current western school system, but reduces in mt school compared to others.

I've heard this is true in Mississippi. I also understand that Mississippi is something of a backwater. Correlation not being causation, I wont draw the conclusion I want to from that. But, as I understand it, indoctrinating children from an early age is a recipe for mindless zombie hoards.

Standard disclaimer: this is not to say that religious persons are mindless, just to say that religions have this habit of quashing curiosity, and an incurious child more often than not grows into a mindless adult.

By the way, wodan, I think you've come up with a contradiction. Good like darke, not bad like a fundie? Darke was spinning all kinds of fundie lines before the banhammer came down.


Title: Re: [Blog] I do not hate you.
Post by: wodan46 on January 06, 2009, 21:47:52 EST
My point was that a quaker may be as intractable as a wahhabi, but if I had no choice but to be stuck with someone that had intractable beliefs, I'd stick with the quaker, who is much less likely to cause damage with them.  Hence my statement that if we can't eradicate religion, we must contain it.