I downloaded the handbook and read through it. Pretty boring stuff, honestly. Some of it was interesting. None of it is anything I wouldn't mind explaining to anyone who's curious.
I'm not thrilled, however, to imagine all the fun and games the anti-Mormon press will get up to with their usual cute hijinx.
On the other hand, attempting to suppress it was probably not a great idea either.:shrug:
ShatteredArm did a good job with this. You've got the wrong book *and* you're fabricating.
Or do you now just get to pick and choose the parts of your religion that you follow, depending on what is popular and what isn't?
It's not a little ironic that anti-Mormons will peg you for being a conformist Mormbot one moment, and then come back and slam you for thinking for yourself the next. Gee, the concept that religious adherents should think for themselves instead of blindly accepting whatever their leader says: what a horrific concept!
Internal consistency is only for people who actually think logically.
What internal consistency am I violating by thinking for myself? And by not treating prophets as infallible? There's not Mormon doctrine that says "everything a prophet says is true". In fact, quite the opposite. So there's no contradiction in saying that a prophet was wrong.
I believe Brigham Young was wrong about race. I'm still a practicing Mormon and believe that he was a prophet of God. I can handle infallible prophets. Get over it.
Mormons are against homosexual behavior. I don't think there's anything worth hiding here. It doesn't follow from being opposed to a behavior that you're persecuting people who follow that behavior.
"How liberal is it to believe that black people are black because of spiritual transgressions?"
That's not really a valid reading of Moses 7:8. If God has used dark skin as a sign in some instances it does not follow that dark skin everywhere is such a sign. Or is significant of anything.
How is it liberal to ban women from becoming priests, or to refuse them entry to heaven unless and until their husbands freely and with no moral obligation choose to grant it to them?
I honestly have to laugh at this. You believe Mormon husbands get to pick and choose, with no obbligation, whether or not their wife gets into heaven? That's crazy-talk. Mormon men have no such power. That's just ludicrous.
As far as women not having the priesthood goes: it's not much of a subjugation if you read D&C 121:41
"No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned;"
In case that's not clear enough:
36 That the rights of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven, and that the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness.
37 That they may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man.
Mormons do believe that the priesthood is given to men and not to women. But they also believe that the priesthood is about *service* and not about *leadership*. So handing men the priesthood is the equivalent of handing them the broom. The moment they attempt to use it in any coercive manner they violate their right to have it at all.
"There is nothing liberal about Mormonism. It is one of the most socially regressive religions in America."
On the contrary, Mormonism is a very strange mixture of rigid hierarchy and radical freedom. A practicing Mormon is expected to be independent in spiritual matters and have their own revelation. Not merely rely on prophets. Mormonism has no official theology and precious little dogma. There is a huge degree of latitude in what you can believe and still call yourself a faithful Mormon. I can think Brigham Young was a racist and still believe. I can think Joseph Smith was wrong about polygamy and still believe.
The emphasis on individual responsibility and choice in Mormonism is one of the things that got it in so much trouble to begin with.
Wow. Someone on the internet challenges your religion, and you offer a reasonable, level-headed, and polite response? You really *are* a Mormon, aren't you?
That's what my name says, anyway. It could be an elaborate ruse, however.
We may differ on theology, but I'd be happy to split a jell-o mold with you someday.
As long as it is orange-flavored with carrot shavings. (So much for my elaborate ruse!)
I do think it's more stupid to believe in miracles that happened 170 years ago
If you mean that it's more stupid for people in 1830 to believe in the supernatural then I think you have a valid point. If you think it's more stupid to believe supernatural things happened in 1830 vs. 1030 than I think you don't. So I'm guessing you meant the former, but I'm not sure.
Your religion teaches that there was an advanced civilization of white people in America before the Native Americans.
Actually it teaches no such thing. They were neither "white" in any conventional sense nor were they the first inhabitants in the Americas.
"Your religion is premised on taking the word of a convicted con man"
Joseph Smith, while in jail in violation of double jeopardy, was shot and killed by a mob of over 100 people. So it's also historical fact that people hated the man. The governor of Illinois issued a famous "extermination proclamation" that all Mormons had to leave the state or they would be executed. So it's obvious that this hatred extended to government officials acting in their capacity as such. Given these historical facts, do you really think it's significant that he was found guilty of a crime?
no one ever saw the gold plates,
11 people did. All swore to this testimony. Non recanted. Not that I think you'll be any more persuaded by 12 people than by 1 person.
he could not reproduce the readings even when challenged
Given the inaccuracy above, it's pretty easy to see that (intentionally or not) you're reading off an anti-Mormon web-site/book. This is a reference to the infamous lost 116 pages. Here are the facts:
Joseph translated 116 pages. He gave the pages to Martin Harrison. Martin Harrison lost the pages. Joseph Smith believed that they had been altered so that if he retranslated them the re translation would not match the original. Thus he did not retranslate them.
Was it because he couldn't? Or because he was legitimately avoiding a trap? It seems silly to say "he couldn't" because it makes no sense to say he was somehow less capable of translating non-existent plates the second time than the first time.
So this is really not a coherent argument at all, but just a clever bit of slander. Whether or not Joseph Smith was an impostor, the case is not strengthened or harmed by the fact that he refused to retranslate once the original text was out of his control.
he enjoyed enormous personal gain when people believed him.
This is utter rubbish. Joseph Smith enjoyed nothing but deprivation and persecution as a result of his claims. He lived in poverty virtually his entire life. He may have enjoyed some brief measure of comfort in Nauvoo in the years before he was killed, but the fact is that if he wanted to make a bunch of cash it would have been trivial to do so, given his talents, without going through all the trouble of getting himself driven out of several states and eventually shot to death.
It does not address what I think are the many enormously unethical positions the Church holds, from its persecution of gays to the many ways it subjugates women to its relentless torment of people who leave the religion.
Where are you getting this stuff? The Church does not "persecute" gays. Do you know what persecution looks like? Because Mormons do. They sort of got murdered, raped, chased out of several states, and lost their homes and property. Mormonism simply holds that homosexual relations are a sin. This isn't persecution and it's not even unique to their religion.
I further don't buy that it "subjugates" women.
"LDS women are more likely to graduate from college than Catholic or Protestant women, but less likely than Jewish or nonaffiliated women. For graduate education the pattern was similarâ"a higher percentage of LDS than Catholic or Protestant women have received graduate education."
Saying "my religion is just as fucked up as other religions" isn't really that much of a defense. Just because you're as bad as other people, that makes it right and ok?
I'm just figuring out which argument I'm having. The argument that Mormonism doesn't violate the Bible/original Christianity is different than the argument that religion is not inherently irrational.
And re-read your link about the golden plates... all of those have physical evidence of, you know, EXISTING, as well as being much, much shorter in text than Joseph Smith's plates.
Right, so it helps to know if you think the plates are retarded in particular (e.g. you're OK with supernatural, just not this instance of it) or if you think the supernatural is inherently retarded. Obviously I can't use the same argument in response to both criticisms.
The sooner you realize that ALL religions are a sham and a ploy to control their congregation to different extents, the sooner your eyes will open.
And now I know which court you're in. The thing that's really funny to me is how die-hard atheists are so religious. The dogma, the conversion experience, even the promise that the truth will set you free. It is the exact same pattern of evangelism you find in proselyting religions.
I think a serious discussion about religion is probably not worth my time in this context. Feel free to message me or email me. Suffice it to say I'm familiar with the works of Hume, Descartes, etc. I've read and deeply respect the French atheist existentialist (Camus, Sartre, de Beauvoir). I'm not clinging to my religion out of ignorant. I understand the arguments against religion and some of them are quite compelling. But my reasoned position is to believe.
You're free to call me an idiot for doing so, or blind, etc. But I'm quite comfortable that there can be intelligent and rational people on both sides of this issue.
If this was a supernaturally assisted event, why does the leadership of the LDS work so hard to suppress distribution of the original printings of Joseph Smith's works?
The Church doesn't suppress original writings. At least, not to the best of my knowledge.
Have you ever compared the original book of Mormon with the current one? It's really quite interesting.
But seriously, last I heard the mormon church still refuses to take responsibility for their part in the massacre.
From Sep, 2007:
CEDAR CITY â" The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints issued a long-awaited apology Tuesday for the massacre of an immigrant wagon train by local church members 150 years ago in southwestern Utah.
Elder Henry B. Eyring of the Quorum of the Twelve read the church's statement on assignment from the church's governing First Presidency during a memorial ceremony at the gravesite of some of the massacre victims at Mountain Meadows, about 35 miles northwest of St. George.
The statement also places blame for the Sept. 11, 1857, massacre on the local church leaders at the time and church members who followed their orders to murder some 120 unarmed men, women and children.
"We express profound regret for the massacre carried out in this valley 150 years ago today, and for the undue and untold suffering experienced by the victims then and by their relatives to the present time," Elder Eyring said.
"A separate expression of regret is owed the Paiute people who have unjustly borne for too long the principal blame for what occurred during the massacre," he said. "Although the extent of their involve- ment is disputed, it is believed they would not have participated without the direction and stimulus provided by local church leaders and members."
Seventeen children survived the massacre that culminated a four-day standoff between local Mormons and a wagon train of Arkansas immigrants making its way to California.
Elder Eyring said that research by church historians, who are writing a book about the massacre that is to be published next year, found that church President Brigham Young's message "conveying the will and intent... not to interfere with the immigrants arrived too late."
The research also found that the "responsibility for the massacre lies with the local leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the regions near Mountain Meadows who also held civic and military positions and with members of the church acting under their direction."
Several hundred descendants of the victims traveled across the country to attend Tuesday's ceremony. Many of them had sought an apology from the church since the dedication eight years ago of a monument marking the burial site of some victims.
Some have also petitioned the church to transfer to the federal government stewardship of the monument and surrounding lands the church has purchased to preserve the site that church President Gordon B. Hinckley has described as sacred ground.
In addressing that proposal, Elder Eyring said, "The church has worked with descendant groups... to maintain the monument and surrounding property and continues to improve and preserve these premises to make them attractive and accessible to all who visit. We are committed to do so in the future." http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,695209359,00.html
It is not the 'underwear' part that is weird, it is the 'magic' part.
The 'magic' part is pure invention. Look, there are a lot of Mormons. Maybe some random Mormon somewhere has said something wacky about their garments. In fact, I'm sure some have. Mormons are wacky people.
But I don't think it's right to hold the religion responsible for the wackiest of its adherents. What religion, or what group of any kind, can withstand that kind of scrutiny?
Mormon's believe garments are a sacred symbol of covenants made with God. They are not magic. Nowhere does the word "magic" appear in Mormon belief about garments. Nor do we apply any magical beliefs to them. They will not protect you from demons or vampires of bullets or fires. They do not repel temptation, except that insofar as when you're taking them off you might hesitate to think about why.
There's nothing magical about them.
"Anyone thinking their clothing has properties outside the laws of physics is weird."
Symbols are not physical. But symbols can be powerful. Other than as a symbol, I don't really know that garments have any non-physical properties at all.
Nope. Virginia, actually. Second-gen Mormon who, for various reasons, decided to walk.
That's funny. It describes me exactly. Except for the "decided to walk" bit, of course.:-)
Considering who the prophet is supposed to have a hotline to... well, I'll just stop there.
That just seems like a childish view on revelation, in my mind. Without getting to personal (about me or you) I'll just say that as a general rule seeking revelation is not easy. It takes a lot of time, focus, effort, and sacrifice. Given that fact, it seems entirely unrealistic to expect a prophet, who is really just a Joe like you or me, to have limitless resources for getting everything confirmed by God.
We're all human. We're all infallible. And God doesn't have an over-abundance of hyper-spiritual people to run His Church. He works with what He has. And the skill set for being a president of a multi-national organization with 11 million members means that "most spiritual person available" isn't going to cut it. Like it or not, a Mormon prophet is also an administrator, a leader, an executive, and a manager.
No where is this more true than with Brigham Young. His job was to, you know, help several thousands of Mormons not die. Which is why I think that theologically he was nowhere near as strong as Joseph Smith.
I think it's dangerous to put prophets up on pedestals because you're just going to get disappointed. I've never really interacted with a prophet or apostle much, but on my mission I did have a few really awful experiences with a 70.
God works with what He's got. And that means prophets who are fallible. Not hypothetically fallible but *really* fallible. As in: they make mistakes. Real ones, with real consequences.
No one is denying the racist past of the Mormon church. The question is whether the racism is merely a reflection of Mormon members, or is inherent to the doctrines of the religion.
And the answer is that Mormon theology is not and has never been racist. Not even a little bit. But some Mormons were racist. That's not something to be proud of, but I don't have to believe Mormons are perfect to believe in their religion. In fact, Mormonism is pretty unambiguous that human beings are *not* perfect. Not even prophets.
Just like God changed his mind about polygamy, apparently, now you're claiming Mormons are changing their mind about racism.
It's not a problem for me that God changes his instructions. That's the point of having a prophet. The Mormon God is a pragmatic fellow. "Oh, they're going to kill you all for practicing polygamy? Probably time to pack it in."
Sounds like pretty good reasoning. Works for me.
Don't worry - Christians do the same thing, pick and choose from their supposedly holy beliefs to "adapt to society".
Not everything a Church does or that is done in the name of a Church is "holy belief". Mormons aren't alone in this. Talk to a knowledgeable Catholic sometime. There's very intricate theology explaining the differences between immutable principles of their religion and quite mutable practices that are an application of those principles to a world that is constantly changing.
It was official doctrine that black people couldn't hold the priesthood, though.
Actually no, it wasn't. Joseph Smith gave the priesthood to at least 2 blacks in his lifetime. The no-priesthood injunction is not based on any accepted Mormon theology or doctrine. Mormon doctrine is very unambiguous. The only things that you can peg as official are the writings of the standard works: The Bible (KJV), Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price. An injunction against blacks holding the priesthood is nowhere to be found.
So where did the *practice* (not doctrine* come from? Brigham Young. The second prophet of the Church. Nowhere did he announce new doctrine to substantiate this practice, but it was accepted by the Mormons and followed for hundreds of years. I consider this a tragedy, and the only defense I can offer is that the Mormons were not significantly more racist than their Christian counterparts. I wish they had been more enlightened, but it's a blemish on the leaders and does not reflect any Mormon doctrine or theology then or now.
I'm an ex-Mormon
I'm guessing from Utah? It's always a shame to me that people aren't more careful before leaving the Church. I don't mean to second-guess your decision. I'm simply stating that a lot of Mormons accept culture as doctrine when it's quite clear that Mormonism is actually a very, very liberal and individualistic religion. I assume you've heard of the King Follet Discourse. I know active Mormons who believe it to be true. I know active Mormons who condemn it and think Joseph Smith was off his rocker. I know active Mormons who aren't sure what to think about it.
Just because a prophet said it doesn't mean it's a part of Mormon doctrine.
Hate to tell you... The Church of LDS is weird. :shrug:
You think Christianity in the time of Christ wasn't weird? All new religions are weird. Weird is just a way of saying "different from the norm".
I don't mind people considering the religion weird, but I do wish they'd be a bit better informed about it.
Portraying NA as a lost tribe of Israel
Not a part of Mormonism. The Book of Mormon is a history of a small group of people that emmigrated from Jerusalem to NA. It's not a history of the entire Americas and everyone that has ever lived on it. Or even a majority. Or even a significant minority.
the Garden of Eden and the new Jerusalem in Jackson County Missouri
Yup, that's weird.
history of polygamy in Western society as a central tenet of faith (followed by denouncing that practice)
It wasn't really a central tenet of the faith, although it was a defining cultural distinction. And, in any case, the very first reference to polygamy comes from the Book of Mormon (published in 1830) and predates any practice of polygamy by any Mormon. And in that instance polygamy is explicitly banned with a caveat that God might, from time to time, institute the practice.
the tiering of the "Celestial Kingdom"
There's plenty of basis for that in the NT.
the structure and demands of the church is weird.
The structure is also straight out of the NT. President (e.g. Peter), Quorum of the 12, the 70, etc. The demands - tithing, etc. - are also totally biblical.
I suppose they may be weird in contrast to mainstream Christian denominations, but they certainly aren't weird in contrast to the Biblical tradition all Christians honor.
I didn't take what you wrote as an attack. But I do think that you're not very well informed. Like I said originally, I'm happy to be identified as weird for what I believe as long as the things I'm purported to believe are things I actually do believe.
I'm aware that you've earned your "Troll" ranking, and perhaps I should stop feeding you. It's just hard to tell when an anti-Mormon is serious and when they are just being a troll. The arguments are pretty similar.
In any case, I can't prove my religion and I have no desire to try. But I can certainly dismiss some of the most ridiculous counter-arguments (like these). Mormonism involves supernatural occurrences. This doesn't make it more or less stupid than any other religion. It just happens to be 170 years old instead of 1,700 years old.
IAAM. I don't think they are weird. I do think it is weird that people so credulously believe any rumor they hear about them. I enjoy learning more about other religions and faith traditions, and I think Stendahl's Rules are a good guide.
(1) When you are trying to understand another religion, you should ask the adherents of that religion and not its enemies.
This is a pretty clear violation of rule #1. I don't get the impression you particularly care to know much about Mormonism, but it certainly strikes me as ignorant to combine apathy and ignorance and pass it off as having an opinion.
It never ceases to amaze me how stupid people are.
Stendahl (above) is not a Mormon. Daniel Peterson is. He added a 4th rule to Stendahl's Rules:
So the principle that came to me on this was that if you are looking at a religious tradition that has a large number of adherents...then there must be something in it that appeals to different people.
Mormonism, for example, has clearly lasted long enough and has clearly appealed to a wide enough cross section of people that you don't have to concede that it's true to say there must be something there that appeals to people; bright people, practical people, highly educated people, uneducated people; all sorts of people in all sorts of cultures have found something appealing in this movement. The same is true of Hinduism, Islam and Christianity.
Then again, you may be one of those folks that think all religions are stupid. It's not always obvious whether an anti-Mormon is a belligerent atheist or a belligerent evangelical, but most of them break down into one or the other. (With a smaller category for angry ex-Mormons, I suppose.)
Some piece of clothes all of a sudden have magic meaning.
I know. It's so stupid. Like the way we just pretend that all of a sudden patterns of black lines on a white background have meaning and call them letters and numbers. What could be dumber?
It's so absurd it's beyond comprehension.
Which means either: 1. All 11 million Mormons (say 5 or 6 million if you want to just talk about practicing Mormons) are retarded.
or
2. Your perception of their beliefs is not accurate.
I don't think anyone could seriously believe #1, but it makes a nice insult if that's your goal.
If you think religious clothing is a must, you have some serious mental issues.
What if you don't think it's a "must". What if you choose to believe that it's merely a symbol of personal commitment and wear it for that reason?
How much of the belief systems of the Vikings have you studied? What about all of the Indian theology and philosophers? Have you studied them all?
That's exactly my point. I don't know very much about Viking theology. What I do know I know from reading historical fiction (Bernard Cornwell) and I know next to nothing about Indian theology and philosophy (although I would love to have a serious conversation with a devout sikh one day). And as a result, you won't catch me making sweeping pronouncements about what Vikings or Indians believe. And yet here we have some dude on Slashdot defining religion (not even just Christian religion!) and a bunch of chuckle-head moderators giving him +1 insightful for re-affirming their own ignoran prejudices.
One of the problems with these guys is that they all begin with the a-priori assumption that god does exist.
Which illustrates exactly how ignorant this whole smug anti-religious sentiment. "A lot of these guys", huh? How about one of the greatest Christian writers of all time: Dostoevsky. He'e s personal hero of mine, and let's see how his version of Christian faith holds up against your stupid assertion that "these guys.. all being with a-priori assumption that god does exist":
It is not as a child that I believe and confess Jesus Christ. My hosanna is born of a furnace of doubt. ~ Fyodor Dostoevsky
"I will tell you that I am a child of this century, a child of disbelief and doubt. I am that today and will remain so until the grave. How much terrible torture this thirst for faith has cost me and costs me even now, which is all the stronger in my soul the more arguments I can find against it. And yet, God sends me sometimes instants when I am completely calm; at those instants I love and feel loved by others, and it is at those instances that I have shaped for myself a Credo where everything is clear and sacred or me. This Credo is very simple, here it is: to believe that nothing is more beautiful, profound, sympathetic, reasonable, manly and more powerful than Christ; and I tell myself with a jealous love not only that there is nothing, but that there cannot be anything higher. Even more, if someone proved to me that Christ is outside truth, and that in realitythe truth were outside Christ, that I should prefer to remain with Christ rather than with the truth." - Fyodor Dostoevsky
You want to explain how this fits into your little pigeon-holed version of all religion? For crying out loud, look at Kierkegaard. He's largely considered one of the fathers of existentialism, and you think he doesn't know about doubt?
So, to repeat: I don't sound off about Viking theology because I know full-well that I'm ignorant. And you won't catch me trying to define religion because anyone who tells you in 1 or 2 sentences what religion is will sound like an idiot to anyone who knows what they're talking about. I know just enough about religion, and Christian theology in particular, to know that the trite stereotypes are infantile straw men next to some of the actual Christian thinkers out there.
Agustine's work presumes a literal creation, one which conflicts with the reality of evolution. Let's face facts - most of the arguments (untestable, unprovable waffle) from these philosophers have been overtaken by the real world analysis of science.
Sure, if you think that the height of Christian philosophy was the Middle Ages. I guess you should take a list over here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_theologians Notice that 20th century and 21st century have their own categories. Do you have an Bonhoeffer to go with your Augustine? Any C. S. Lewis? Anybody at all from that list?
I've got no idea what a frequently testable religious claim would be if it's not quantifiable or testable. Presumably you are referring to anecdotal evidence ("I prayed and I got better") ignoring the "I prayed, but I didn't get
Religion and science are antithetical. Religion is based on untestable claims and dogma.
It's really pathetic that you can get modded +4 insightful by not knowing what the hell you're talking about. I mean seriously, how much religion have you studied? Kierkegaard? Augustine? Aquinas? This is just argument-from-definition. "I define religion to be based on untestaable claims and dogma". Nevermind that:
1. religious claims are frequently testable, even if the data is not quantifiable or transferable. 2. science is inherently untestable (see: "law of causation")
But hey, if it makes you feel better to draw a big line in your head and have "science" on one side and "religion" on the other, I suppose it has served its (unscientific) purpose.
I think science is great because -it works-
Yeah. Because nothing bad has ever been done in the name of science.
Religion on the other hand...
And nothing good has ever been done in the name of religion.
I thought it was the Christian right that was supposed to see everything in stark black-and-white...
According to the book of Cordelia Fine ("A mind of it's own : how the brain distorts and deceives") I should be very wary of people who establish truth solely though personal experience. Given the book was written based on mountains of experiments by psychologists world wide, brain scanning techniques etc, and not 1500 years ago, I think i'll take it's recommendations more seriously.
I agree. Personal experience is tricky. It should not be used in isolation. It should be used with whatever applicable evidence can be gathered as well as the application of reason and logic. However your position - that we should only accept those claims which are scientific (falsifiable hypotheticals subject to quantifiable, repeatable exeperimenation) is untenable.
2. The Faith of Science
The philosopher Hegel pointed out that a fundamental irrational aspect of science is believe in casaulity. We can observe A and then B, but we can never directly observer the causation between the two. We can only infer causation.
Of course, it's actually worse than that. In order to believe in the scientific you have to believe in causation first. In other words, it is necessary to assume causation in order to use the scientific method because the scientific method can't work without causation. So even if it were possible to directly prove causation (and it's not) it would still be necessary to act on the assumption that it holds prior to establishing any evidence of whether or not it holds.
Individual scientific theories are testable, falsifiable, quantifiable, etc. but the scientific paradigm itself is not. Instead, we simply assume causality and then notice, after the fact, that we get all sorts of functioning scientific theory and applicable technology. Every time causality works as expected this reinforces our faith (and it is faith) in causality.
This is the same model I apply to religous faith. It is entirely rationaly, and merely the act of operating on insufficient evidence but in accord with the best evidence and reason available.
Ah, the old "you haven't criticised what -i- believe in" line. Heard it too many times to be interested. All versions of religion are stupid, because they aren't based on testable claims, in fact the opposite is true.
For the record that is not my position. I do not believe that Mormonism, or my particular take on Mormonism has a lock on rational faith. I believe it is common to many denominations of Christianity as well as many non-Christian faiths.
Most people take their religion on blind faith which is why there is such a strong correlation b/w a parent's religion, and their children's.
Agreed. But that's a statement of what most people do and not of what religion is.
I notice that in your second sentence you subtly change the goalposts from "is religion true" to 'the role of religion'.
The only "cute" thing is your apparent insistence that the aim of science is epistemological certainty about the world. Certainty has been dead since Descartes, my friend, and it's never coming back. I don't think it's useful to ask if religious claims are true without qualification or if scientific claims are true without qualification because "truth" - sans any doubt, uncertainty, or room for error - is impossible for humans to achieve.
I have read a lot of the stuff that the religious write, and it's crap (the emperor's new clothes comes to mind). Philosophers can be interesting (Peter Singer is,and he's an atheist. So too was Nietzsche).
As have I. But here is the evidence of your prejudice. While I believe that atheists are wrong on the fact of God's existence, I have no chip on my should that causes me to spout such absurdities as "stupid atheism is a tautlology". Some of the philosophers I revere the most (French atheist existentialist like Sartre, Camus, and deBeauvoir) are (as the name implies) atheist. I
And of course this is completely bass-ackwards. Religion and science are antithetical. Religion is based on untestable claims and dogma. Science is based on repeatable observations for gathering facts, and theory to provide a consistent framework to explain them.
Your statement is more indicative of prejudice than anything else. Not all religions are based on "untestable claims and dogma". In fact, a great many religions rely on personal experience and experimentation, and are differentiated from science by the nature of the data collected (unquantifiable) and not by an embrace of blind faith. You have done just what I criticized: taken one version of religion (the stupid version) and conflated it with religion in general.
The bible itself (just as one example) decries this stupid approach to religion in John 7L17:
"17 If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself."
Translation: test the doctrine out in your life and through personal experience you will come to know if it is true or not.
Furthermore it is trivial to see that religion without testing and experimentation is frought with moral dilemmas. If the point of religion is to accept dogma without reason, than there is no moral distinction between someone who accepts religion A and religion B, and therefore God is unjust to differentiate between the two.
So I've just illustrated the obvious moral problems with blind-faith based religion and the scriptural basis for Christianity (which I'm not claiming is unique in this regard) to establish a reason and evidence based approach to religion.
The problem is that you, like many young materialists, are so wrapped up in ridiculing the stupid version of religion that you're unwilling to consider the possibility that other and less intellectually retarded versions may exist. Try talking to a philosopher of religion or a trained theologian and I think your preconceptions about the role of reason in religion will be challenged.
Science, on the other hand, is certain *intended* to be as you describe. But you're contrasting religion at it's worst with science at it's best. The fact of the matter is that while what you say is theoretically true about science (and theoretically false about religion) in practice science (e.g. the body of professional scientists, publications, and the theories and work they produce) departs radically from "true science".
nd in Green Bank, West Virginia at the new National Radio Astronomy Observatory, a young astrophysicist named Frank Drake runs a two week project called Ozma, to search for extraterrestrial signals. A signal is received, to great excitement. It turns out to be false, but the excitement remains. In 1960, Drake organizes the first SETI conference, and came up with the now-famous Drake equation:
N=N*fp ne fl fi fc fL
Where N is the number of stars in the Milky Way galaxy; fp is the fraction with planets; ne is the number of planets per star capable of supporting life; fl is the fraction of planets where life evolves; fi is the fraction where intelligent life evolves; and fc is the fraction that communicates; and fL is the fraction of the planet's life during which the communicating civilizations live.
This serious-looking equation gave SETI an serious footing as a legitimate intellectual inquiry. The problem, of course, is that none of the terms can be known, and most cannot even be estimated. The only way to work the equation is to fill in with guesses. And guesses-just so we're clear-are merely expressions of prejudice. Nor can there be "informed guesses." If you need to state how many planets with life choose to communicate, t
Spec is definitely on to something here. And I think it comes down to defining religion and science in terms of their function to society as opposed to their content or methodologies.
Inherently religion is supposed to guide people to God/salvation/enlightenment/etc. That is it's stated purpose. But in terms of historical function religion became a powerful political force and for that reason was corrupted. It was easy to exploit religious concepts (especially authority) to subvert a system ostensibly about progression into a system that was in actuality about domination. But the domination was no intrinsic to religious theology, it was intrinsic to any human institution viewed as authoritative.
I would go even farther and say that politico-religion is directly opposed to theological-religion. It's not that there's something wrong with organized religion, per se, it's that organized religion is just too tempting a target for hijacking. And since religions have been around for several thousand years there has been a constant war of attrition as religious powers grew and encompassed political, economic, and military realms.
The antidote to this, or so it at first appeared, was the Enlightenment and the age of reason. Science directly undercut the authority of religion by providing answers to the kinds of questions religion was supposed to provide answer to that had more explanatory power. As a result, the religious sphere of influence became drastically restricted, religious power in the political, economic, and military realms was curtailed, and therefore religion was a less potent vehicle of political domination.
The tragedy is that science itself has come to be the new vehicle of political domination. Just as there's an inherent conflict between politico-religion and theological-religion, there's an emerging concept between politico-science and rational-science.
So while there's a great hullaballoo about the conflict between religion and science the real conflict has always been and always will be the conflict between reason and domination. Religion has a bad name these days, and most people who speak negatively of it are referring the political version of it, the "blind faith", anti-rational version of religion. But if the definition of religion is "a series of untestable and unverifiable dogmas which are adhered to with irrational zeal" than science itself is in serious danger of becoming religion.
Apparently you keep missing the fact that not everyone has your beliefs. A fetus isn't "somebody" to everyone.
Yeah, and Jews weren't "somebody" to everyone, and blacks weren't "somebody" to everyone, and Mormons weren't "somebody" to everyone, and women weren't "somebody" to everyone, etc. It is a matter of scientific fact that an unborn human being is a living human being. If you can explain your rationale for stripping them of human rights, I'm willing to hear it.
We're just going around and around in circles, so I'm ending this discussion.
Perhaps this stems from your unwillingness to defend your points. You claim that an unborn human being has no right to life because they are not self-sufficient. Strictly speaking, an infant is not self-sufficient either. Can infants be electively killed? Dialysis patients are most certainly not biologically self-sufficient. Can dialysis patients be electively killed? Do you have some explanation for this position?
In addition, you continue to maintain that you are pro-choice and pro-life without addressing my criticisms of this position. You believe that unborn human beings do not have a right to life. This is not a pro-life position. Despite your claims that your position is rooted in a desire not to dictate your morality onto others, the actual logic of your position has nothing to do with that. It is rooted firmly on the principle that if you are not born you do not have a right to life.
There's no reason that this argument must necessarily be circular. Feel free to respond to either of these positions and the discussion can continue. But you are right that as long as you claim your reason for being pro-choice is one thing despite the fact that the actual logic is an entirely different thing the argument will go round-and-round.
You didn't ask a question, not about "killing an innocent person accidentally".
Don't you think that's nitpicking? Consider me asking the question now: do you see the difference between killing a person after a long process to ensure they are guilty (although the process is not perfect) and killing a person that is known, beyond any possibility of doubt, to be innocent? If a convicted felon is innocent, the fact is that their execution is an example of a failure in a system that is designed to prevent this from happening. So it's not a failure of the *principle* of the death penalty, but the *practice* of the death penalty.
Abortion, on the other hand, invariably and without doubt kills innocent human beings and is therefore killing innocent human beings in principle and not just now and again on accident.
You can still make the case that the death penalty is not worth the cost of innocent lives. Or you can make the case that we should not kill guilty people either. But I don't think it's possible to make the case that the death penalty is equivalent to abortion. But, I would actually like to hear your answer to the question: can you see the difference between killing someone who has been tried and found guilty and killing someone who is by definition innocent?
My experiences are different in that almost every pro-lifer I've talked didn't want any exceptions. Then again that's a small number or people, most of those that I knew their position on abortion were pro-choice.
All I can say is that I've been involved in the pro-life movement for many, many years. I've volunteered for the VSHL (Virginia Society of Human Life, VA affiliate of the NRLC) attended NRLC conventions, etc. I co-admin an online pro-life group with 40,000 members. And the "no abortions, no exceptions" crowd is a distinct minority.
That doesn't change the fact that an execution of a criminal is the killing of someone - theStorminMormon
Ah, if they were innocent then they weren't a criminal. - Falconwolf
Please, Falconwolf, can you respond to my question? I asked if you could see the difference between killing an innocent person accidentally, when every reasonable precaution has been taken to ensure they are not innocent and killing a person who is known to be innocent? If an innocent person is killed by capital punishment it is a mistake, not intentional, and it takes place in spite of safe guards. In an elective abortion the victim is a *known* to be innocent beyond any shadow of a doubt.
Do you see the difference between killing someone who is thought to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and kiling someone who is known to be innocent beyond a reasonable doubt?
Yea, it's a hackneyed argument pro-lifers bring up. Whereas slaves were capable of self sufficiency most fetuses aren't. What they are are parasites.
This proves my point, Falconwolf. While you claim to be pro-choice and pro-life your actual point of view is pro-choice and *not* pro-life. You do not believe that all human beings have an equal right to life. You believe that a human being who is not self-sufficient has less of a right to life. I'm willing to put pretty good money on the fact that you think this applies to a fetus but probably doesn't apply to a dialysis patient. Which means it's not actually lack of self-sufficiency, but specifically dependence on another human being. (Stop me if I got that wrong. Maybe you think 'aborting' dialysis patients is OK too since they aren't self-sufficient.)
In which case it's pretty clear that you, like many pro-choicers, are conflating the issue of what rights the unborn human being deserves with the issue of what the cost to the mother is of giving thsoe rights to the unborn human being. In self-defense cases you don't say that "the person was threatening me and therefore had no right to life". Someone who is trying to murder you still has a right to life, but your right to self-defense supersedes their right to live.
But in the abortion case, people get confused and think that the cost to the mother (in terms of the costs, physical, emotional, and financial of being pregnant) somehow impact the right of the unborn human being to life.
I have never seen someone successfully explain this to me. If you'd like to explain why relying on another human being for support in any way impacts your right to life, please have at it. But it's going to take more than simply labelling the unborn human being a "parasite".
No I haven't. Notice before I said I was pro-life, however I will not force my personal beliefs on someone else.
And you are not pro-life. You're trying to have it both ways. You're tying to say you just don't want to "force my personal beliefs on someone else". It's great rhetoric, but awful logic. The actual foundation of your belief on abortion is that you think not all human beings deserve human rights. Specifically, you think non self-sufficient human beings have no right to life (although I doubt you actually think that consistently - see the dialysis patient example). This has nothing to do with personal beliefs. This has to do with the civil rights of the unborn. Specifically: you don't think they have any.
Someone who thinks that unborn human beings have no right to life is not pro-life. Period.
Oh, when I said fetuses were parasites, those aren't my words. A female friend once argued that and it's stuck to me.
There's a 4... to arrest someone that they reasonably believe present and have probable cause to believe committed a crime.
Again: with probable cause. That's my whole point. If the police already know - or have good cause to suspect - that you've committed a crime they can act. But they can not *preemptively* search your house to try and find evidence. That's my whole point. They have to have a reason *first*.
Thank you for your well-reasoned response. However I think it does tend to prove my point.
We'll see about that!:-)
I understand that most (or at least many) people who advocate what are currently called "Pro-Life" positions are good decent people with the best of intentions. But that is precisely the point. You will not be the enforcers. The people who waterboard and extraordinarily render at whim, who once tortured people who were advocating for what are now among the "pro-choice" rights will be the enforcers.
Are recreational drug users waterboarded? Are kids who take their parents Rx drugs tortured? This is the kind of hysteria I describe. There's no reason whatsoever to think that if abortion is made illegal then suddenly the CIA will be sending covert agents to waterboard women and their primary care physicians. I mean, just for starters, the CIA isn't even allowed to conduct operations on American soil (and by all accounts actually follows that), and I leave it to you to explain how on earth torturing abortion providers is going to take a precedent over finding terrorists. The FBI, local law enforcement, etc. do not waterboard. There's been no evidence at all, none, that this is the case. There has not even been an accusation that this is the case.
I understand your logic in that you say that it does not follow that absolute enforcement is required for a law to be effected. After all, the government has not mandated governors in all cars despite the speed law
Here's what I think you don't understand, however. Your arguing from a pro-choice perspective. You did not mention once in your entire post the right to life of the unborn. I'll get to that later. If you argue abortion without reference to the unborn human being than it becomes a victimless crime and all of your examples - drug use, the RIAA, etc. - apply.
But I want you to at least understand the pro-life position. Imagine, just for the sake of argument, that the unborn human being deserves human rights. The simplest way to do that is to imagine the argument is not abortion but infanticide. (I'm not trying to prove that abortion really is like infanticide, and I don't even believe it, but I want you to stand in the shoes of someone who believes all human beings have a right to life.) If it was legal to kill infants up to 1 year, would you see banning this practice as encroaching upon or expanding on liberty?
What I'm getting at is this: the pro-life side wants more protections for citizens, not less. You see this as increasing government control precisely because you completely omit any consideration of the unborn human being from the question. But to a pro-lifer the protecting of the unborn goes hand-in-hand with increasing liberty. I'm in favor of limiting abortion *and* amenable to legalizing drug use *and* incredibly opposed to the RIAA and their conception of intellectual property rights. I want less government and more individual liberty, but if a segment of our society has no right to life how can I say that I am pro-liberty?
The point I'm getting across is that the view of the unborn human being is the fulcrum on which this question turns. If the unborn human being merits no consideration then your comparison of the pro-life side with anti-liberty forces is accurate because the liberty of the woman is being curtailed and there's no increase in liberty for someone else. However if the unborn human being merits consideration then the pro-life position is no more limiting liberty than abolitionists or civil rights protestors limited liberty. (I do not actually believe that women who get abortions are in any way similar to slave owners. Women in crisis pregnancies are quite literally under extreme duress. I do think it may be an apt description of doctors who provide them.)
Fundamentally though you're missing the point that in order to make abortion illegal in this country you have to o
Slashdot Mirror
I downloaded the handbook and read through it. Pretty boring stuff, honestly. Some of it was interesting. None of it is anything I wouldn't mind explaining to anyone who's curious.
:shrug:
I'm not thrilled, however, to imagine all the fun and games the anti-Mormon press will get up to with their usual cute hijinx.
On the other hand, attempting to suppress it was probably not a great idea either.
ShatteredArm did a good job with this. You've got the wrong book *and* you're fabricating.
Or do you now just get to pick and choose the parts of your religion that you follow, depending on what is popular and what isn't?
It's not a little ironic that anti-Mormons will peg you for being a conformist Mormbot one moment, and then come back and slam you for thinking for yourself the next. Gee, the concept that religious adherents should think for themselves instead of blindly accepting whatever their leader says: what a horrific concept!
Internal consistency is only for people who actually think logically.
What internal consistency am I violating by thinking for myself? And by not treating prophets as infallible? There's not Mormon doctrine that says "everything a prophet says is true". In fact, quite the opposite. So there's no contradiction in saying that a prophet was wrong.
I believe Brigham Young was wrong about race. I'm still a practicing Mormon and believe that he was a prophet of God. I can handle infallible prophets. Get over it.
Mormons are against homosexual behavior. I don't think there's anything worth hiding here. It doesn't follow from being opposed to a behavior that you're persecuting people who follow that behavior.
"How liberal is it to believe that black people are black because of spiritual transgressions?"
That's not really a valid reading of Moses 7:8. If God has used dark skin as a sign in some instances it does not follow that dark skin everywhere is such a sign. Or is significant of anything.
How is it liberal to ban women from becoming priests, or to refuse them entry to heaven unless and until their husbands freely and with no moral obligation choose to grant it to them?
I honestly have to laugh at this. You believe Mormon husbands get to pick and choose, with no obbligation, whether or not their wife gets into heaven? That's crazy-talk. Mormon men have no such power. That's just ludicrous.
As far as women not having the priesthood goes: it's not much of a subjugation if you read D&C 121:41
"No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned;"
In case that's not clear enough:
36 That the rights of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven, and that the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness.
37 That they may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man.
Mormons do believe that the priesthood is given to men and not to women. But they also believe that the priesthood is about *service* and not about *leadership*. So handing men the priesthood is the equivalent of handing them the broom. The moment they attempt to use it in any coercive manner they violate their right to have it at all.
"There is nothing liberal about Mormonism. It is one of the most socially regressive religions in America."
On the contrary, Mormonism is a very strange mixture of rigid hierarchy and radical freedom. A practicing Mormon is expected to be independent in spiritual matters and have their own revelation. Not merely rely on prophets. Mormonism has no official theology and precious little dogma. There is a huge degree of latitude in what you can believe and still call yourself a faithful Mormon. I can think Brigham Young was a racist and still believe. I can think Joseph Smith was wrong about polygamy and still believe.
The emphasis on individual responsibility and choice in Mormonism is one of the things that got it in so much trouble to begin with.
Wow. Someone on the internet challenges your religion, and you offer a reasonable, level-headed, and polite response? You really *are* a Mormon, aren't you?
That's what my name says, anyway. It could be an elaborate ruse, however.
We may differ on theology, but I'd be happy to split a jell-o mold with you someday.
As long as it is orange-flavored with carrot shavings. (So much for my elaborate ruse!)
I do think it's more stupid to believe in miracles that happened 170 years ago
If you mean that it's more stupid for people in 1830 to believe in the supernatural then I think you have a valid point. If you think it's more stupid to believe supernatural things happened in 1830 vs. 1030 than I think you don't. So I'm guessing you meant the former, but I'm not sure.
Your religion teaches that there was an advanced civilization of white people in America before the Native Americans.
Actually it teaches no such thing. They were neither "white" in any conventional sense nor were they the first inhabitants in the Americas.
"Your religion is premised on taking the word of a convicted con man"
Joseph Smith, while in jail in violation of double jeopardy, was shot and killed by a mob of over 100 people. So it's also historical fact that people hated the man. The governor of Illinois issued a famous "extermination proclamation" that all Mormons had to leave the state or they would be executed. So it's obvious that this hatred extended to government officials acting in their capacity as such. Given these historical facts, do you really think it's significant that he was found guilty of a crime?
no one ever saw the gold plates,
11 people did. All swore to this testimony. Non recanted. Not that I think you'll be any more persuaded by 12 people than by 1 person.
he could not reproduce the readings even when challenged
Given the inaccuracy above, it's pretty easy to see that (intentionally or not) you're reading off an anti-Mormon web-site/book. This is a reference to the infamous lost 116 pages. Here are the facts:
Joseph translated 116 pages. He gave the pages to Martin Harrison. Martin Harrison lost the pages. Joseph Smith believed that they had been altered so that if he retranslated them the re translation would not match the original. Thus he did not retranslate them.
Was it because he couldn't? Or because he was legitimately avoiding a trap? It seems silly to say "he couldn't" because it makes no sense to say he was somehow less capable of translating non-existent plates the second time than the first time.
So this is really not a coherent argument at all, but just a clever bit of slander. Whether or not Joseph Smith was an impostor, the case is not strengthened or harmed by the fact that he refused to retranslate once the original text was out of his control.
he enjoyed enormous personal gain when people believed him.
This is utter rubbish. Joseph Smith enjoyed nothing but deprivation and persecution as a result of his claims. He lived in poverty virtually his entire life. He may have enjoyed some brief measure of comfort in Nauvoo in the years before he was killed, but the fact is that if he wanted to make a bunch of cash it would have been trivial to do so, given his talents, without going through all the trouble of getting himself driven out of several states and eventually shot to death.
It does not address what I think are the many enormously unethical positions the Church holds, from its persecution of gays to the many ways it subjugates women to its relentless torment of people who leave the religion.
Where are you getting this stuff? The Church does not "persecute" gays. Do you know what persecution looks like? Because Mormons do. They sort of got murdered, raped, chased out of several states, and lost their homes and property. Mormonism simply holds that homosexual relations are a sin. This isn't persecution and it's not even unique to their religion.
I further don't buy that it "subjugates" women.
"LDS women are more likely to graduate from college than Catholic or Protestant women, but less likely than Jewish or nonaffiliated women. For graduate education the pattern was similarâ"a higher percentage of LDS than Catholic or Protestant women have received graduate education."
"LDS women are more likely to be employ
Saying "my religion is just as fucked up as other religions" isn't really that much of a defense. Just because you're as bad as other people, that makes it right and ok?
I'm just figuring out which argument I'm having. The argument that Mormonism doesn't violate the Bible/original Christianity is different than the argument that religion is not inherently irrational.
And re-read your link about the golden plates... all of those have physical evidence of, you know, EXISTING, as well as being much, much shorter in text than Joseph Smith's plates.
Right, so it helps to know if you think the plates are retarded in particular (e.g. you're OK with supernatural, just not this instance of it) or if you think the supernatural is inherently retarded. Obviously I can't use the same argument in response to both criticisms.
The sooner you realize that ALL religions are a sham and a ploy to control their congregation to different extents, the sooner your eyes will open.
And now I know which court you're in. The thing that's really funny to me is how die-hard atheists are so religious. The dogma, the conversion experience, even the promise that the truth will set you free. It is the exact same pattern of evangelism you find in proselyting religions.
I think a serious discussion about religion is probably not worth my time in this context. Feel free to message me or email me. Suffice it to say I'm familiar with the works of Hume, Descartes, etc. I've read and deeply respect the French atheist existentialist (Camus, Sartre, de Beauvoir). I'm not clinging to my religion out of ignorant. I understand the arguments against religion and some of them are quite compelling. But my reasoned position is to believe.
You're free to call me an idiot for doing so, or blind, etc. But I'm quite comfortable that there can be intelligent and rational people on both sides of this issue.
If this was a supernaturally assisted event, why does the leadership of the LDS work so hard to suppress distribution of the original printings of Joseph Smith's works?
The Church doesn't suppress original writings. At least, not to the best of my knowledge.
Have you ever compared the original book of Mormon with the current one? It's really quite interesting.
I really don't think it is.
http://www.fairlds.org/Book_of_Mormon/Book_of_Mormon_vs_the_Critics.html
From Sep, 2007: CEDAR CITY â" The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints issued a long-awaited apology Tuesday for the massacre of an immigrant wagon train by local church members 150 years ago in southwestern Utah.
Elder Henry B. Eyring of the Quorum of the Twelve read the church's statement on assignment from the church's governing First Presidency during a memorial ceremony at the gravesite of some of the massacre victims at Mountain Meadows, about 35 miles northwest of St. George.
The statement also places blame for the Sept. 11, 1857, massacre on the local church leaders at the time and church members who followed their orders to murder some 120 unarmed men, women and children.
"We express profound regret for the massacre carried out in this valley 150 years ago today, and for the undue and untold suffering experienced by the victims then and by their relatives to the present time," Elder Eyring said.
"A separate expression of regret is owed the Paiute people who have unjustly borne for too long the principal blame for what occurred during the massacre," he said. "Although the extent of their involve- ment is disputed, it is believed they would not have participated without the direction and stimulus provided by local church leaders and members."
Seventeen children survived the massacre that culminated a four-day standoff between local Mormons and a wagon train of Arkansas immigrants making its way to California.
Elder Eyring said that research by church historians, who are writing a book about the massacre that is to be published next year, found that church President Brigham Young's message "conveying the will and intent
The research also found that the "responsibility for the massacre lies with the local leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the regions near Mountain Meadows who also held civic and military positions and with members of the church acting under their direction."
Several hundred descendants of the victims traveled across the country to attend Tuesday's ceremony. Many of them had sought an apology from the church since the dedication eight years ago of a monument marking the burial site of some victims.
Some have also petitioned the church to transfer to the federal government stewardship of the monument and surrounding lands the church has purchased to preserve the site that church President Gordon B. Hinckley has described as sacred ground.
In addressing that proposal, Elder Eyring said, "The church has worked with descendant groups
It is not the 'underwear' part that is weird, it is the 'magic' part.
The 'magic' part is pure invention. Look, there are a lot of Mormons. Maybe some random Mormon somewhere has said something wacky about their garments. In fact, I'm sure some have. Mormons are wacky people.
But I don't think it's right to hold the religion responsible for the wackiest of its adherents. What religion, or what group of any kind, can withstand that kind of scrutiny?
Mormon's believe garments are a sacred symbol of covenants made with God. They are not magic. Nowhere does the word "magic" appear in Mormon belief about garments. Nor do we apply any magical beliefs to them. They will not protect you from demons or vampires of bullets or fires. They do not repel temptation, except that insofar as when you're taking them off you might hesitate to think about why.
There's nothing magical about them.
"Anyone thinking their clothing has properties outside the laws of physics is weird."
Symbols are not physical. But symbols can be powerful. Other than as a symbol, I don't really know that garments have any non-physical properties at all.
EDIT: obviously "infallible" should be "fallible" in the line "We're all infallible". Oops.
Nope. Virginia, actually. Second-gen Mormon who, for various reasons, decided to walk.
:-)
That's funny. It describes me exactly. Except for the "decided to walk" bit, of course.
Considering who the prophet is supposed to have a hotline to... well, I'll just stop there.
That just seems like a childish view on revelation, in my mind. Without getting to personal (about me or you) I'll just say that as a general rule seeking revelation is not easy. It takes a lot of time, focus, effort, and sacrifice. Given that fact, it seems entirely unrealistic to expect a prophet, who is really just a Joe like you or me, to have limitless resources for getting everything confirmed by God.
We're all human. We're all infallible. And God doesn't have an over-abundance of hyper-spiritual people to run His Church. He works with what He has. And the skill set for being a president of a multi-national organization with 11 million members means that "most spiritual person available" isn't going to cut it. Like it or not, a Mormon prophet is also an administrator, a leader, an executive, and a manager.
No where is this more true than with Brigham Young. His job was to, you know, help several thousands of Mormons not die. Which is why I think that theologically he was nowhere near as strong as Joseph Smith.
I think it's dangerous to put prophets up on pedestals because you're just going to get disappointed. I've never really interacted with a prophet or apostle much, but on my mission I did have a few really awful experiences with a 70.
God works with what He's got. And that means prophets who are fallible. Not hypothetically fallible but *really* fallible. As in: they make mistakes. Real ones, with real consequences.
You can deny it all you want.
No one is denying the racist past of the Mormon church. The question is whether the racism is merely a reflection of Mormon members, or is inherent to the doctrines of the religion.
And the answer is that Mormon theology is not and has never been racist. Not even a little bit. But some Mormons were racist. That's not something to be proud of, but I don't have to believe Mormons are perfect to believe in their religion. In fact, Mormonism is pretty unambiguous that human beings are *not* perfect. Not even prophets.
Just like God changed his mind about polygamy, apparently, now you're claiming Mormons are changing their mind about racism.
It's not a problem for me that God changes his instructions. That's the point of having a prophet. The Mormon God is a pragmatic fellow. "Oh, they're going to kill you all for practicing polygamy? Probably time to pack it in."
Sounds like pretty good reasoning. Works for me.
Don't worry - Christians do the same thing, pick and choose from their supposedly holy beliefs to "adapt to society".
Not everything a Church does or that is done in the name of a Church is "holy belief". Mormons aren't alone in this. Talk to a knowledgeable Catholic sometime. There's very intricate theology explaining the differences between immutable principles of their religion and quite mutable practices that are an application of those principles to a world that is constantly changing.
It was official doctrine that black people couldn't hold the priesthood, though.
Actually no, it wasn't. Joseph Smith gave the priesthood to at least 2 blacks in his lifetime. The no-priesthood injunction is not based on any accepted Mormon theology or doctrine. Mormon doctrine is very unambiguous. The only things that you can peg as official are the writings of the standard works: The Bible (KJV), Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price. An injunction against blacks holding the priesthood is nowhere to be found.
So where did the *practice* (not doctrine* come from? Brigham Young. The second prophet of the Church. Nowhere did he announce new doctrine to substantiate this practice, but it was accepted by the Mormons and followed for hundreds of years. I consider this a tragedy, and the only defense I can offer is that the Mormons were not significantly more racist than their Christian counterparts. I wish they had been more enlightened, but it's a blemish on the leaders and does not reflect any Mormon doctrine or theology then or now.
I'm an ex-Mormon
I'm guessing from Utah? It's always a shame to me that people aren't more careful before leaving the Church. I don't mean to second-guess your decision. I'm simply stating that a lot of Mormons accept culture as doctrine when it's quite clear that Mormonism is actually a very, very liberal and individualistic religion. I assume you've heard of the King Follet Discourse. I know active Mormons who believe it to be true. I know active Mormons who condemn it and think Joseph Smith was off his rocker. I know active Mormons who aren't sure what to think about it.
Just because a prophet said it doesn't mean it's a part of Mormon doctrine.
Hate to tell you... The Church of LDS is weird. :shrug:
You think Christianity in the time of Christ wasn't weird? All new religions are weird. Weird is just a way of saying "different from the norm".
I don't mind people considering the religion weird, but I do wish they'd be a bit better informed about it.
Portraying NA as a lost tribe of Israel
Not a part of Mormonism. The Book of Mormon is a history of a small group of people that emmigrated from Jerusalem to NA. It's not a history of the entire Americas and everyone that has ever lived on it. Or even a majority. Or even a significant minority.
the Garden of Eden and the new Jerusalem in Jackson County Missouri
Yup, that's weird.
history of polygamy in Western society as a central tenet of faith (followed by denouncing that practice)
It wasn't really a central tenet of the faith, although it was a defining cultural distinction. And, in any case, the very first reference to polygamy comes from the Book of Mormon (published in 1830) and predates any practice of polygamy by any Mormon. And in that instance polygamy is explicitly banned with a caveat that God might, from time to time, institute the practice.
the tiering of the "Celestial Kingdom"
There's plenty of basis for that in the NT.
the structure and demands of the church is weird.
The structure is also straight out of the NT. President (e.g. Peter), Quorum of the 12, the 70, etc. The demands - tithing, etc. - are also totally biblical.
I suppose they may be weird in contrast to mainstream Christian denominations, but they certainly aren't weird in contrast to the Biblical tradition all Christians honor.
I didn't take what you wrote as an attack. But I do think that you're not very well informed. Like I said originally, I'm happy to be identified as weird for what I believe as long as the things I'm purported to believe are things I actually do believe.
Golden plates.. magical glasses.. Your whole religion is a scam, it was created by a snake oil salesman, a criminal. It's batshit crazy!
Yes. The idea of people writing their records on metallic tablets is stupid. That has certainly never happened.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_plates#Non-LDS_plates_and_Mormon_apologetics
Or magical glasses. Yes, that's equally absurd.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urim_and_Thummim
I'm aware that you've earned your "Troll" ranking, and perhaps I should stop feeding you. It's just hard to tell when an anti-Mormon is serious and when they are just being a troll. The arguments are pretty similar.
In any case, I can't prove my religion and I have no desire to try. But I can certainly dismiss some of the most ridiculous counter-arguments (like these). Mormonism involves supernatural occurrences. This doesn't make it more or less stupid than any other religion. It just happens to be 170 years old instead of 1,700 years old.
You don't think magical underwear is weired?
IAAM. I don't think they are weird. I do think it is weird that people so credulously believe any rumor they hear about them. I enjoy learning more about other religions and faith traditions, and I think Stendahl's Rules are a good guide.
(1) When you are trying to understand another religion, you should ask the adherents of that religion and not its enemies.
(2) Don't compare your best to their worst.
(3) Leave room for "holy envy."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krister_Stendahl
This is a pretty clear violation of rule #1. I don't get the impression you particularly care to know much about Mormonism, but it certainly strikes me as ignorant to combine apathy and ignorance and pass it off as having an opinion.
It never ceases to amaze me how stupid people are.
Stendahl (above) is not a Mormon. Daniel Peterson is. He added a 4th rule to Stendahl's Rules:
So the principle that came to me on this was that if you are looking at a religious tradition that has a large number of adherents...then there must be something in it that appeals to different people.
Mormonism, for example, has clearly lasted long enough and has clearly appealed to a wide enough cross section of people that you don't have to concede that it's true to say there must be something there that appeals to people; bright people, practical people, highly educated people, uneducated people; all sorts of people in all sorts of cultures have found something appealing in this movement. The same is true of Hinduism, Islam and Christianity.
http://www.fairlds.org/Anti-Mormons/Critics_of_the_LDS_Faith.html
Then again, you may be one of those folks that think all religions are stupid. It's not always obvious whether an anti-Mormon is a belligerent atheist or a belligerent evangelical, but most of them break down into one or the other. (With a smaller category for angry ex-Mormons, I suppose.)
Some piece of clothes all of a sudden have magic meaning.
I know. It's so stupid. Like the way we just pretend that all of a sudden patterns of black lines on a white background have meaning and call them letters and numbers. What could be dumber?
It's so absurd it's beyond comprehension.
Which means either:
1. All 11 million Mormons (say 5 or 6 million if you want to just talk about practicing Mormons) are retarded.
or
2. Your perception of their beliefs is not accurate.
I don't think anyone could seriously believe #1, but it makes a nice insult if that's your goal.
If you think religious clothing is a must, you have some serious mental issues.
What if you don't think it's a "must". What if you choose to believe that it's merely a symbol of personal commitment and wear it for that reason?
How much of the belief systems of the Vikings have you studied? What about all of the Indian theology and philosophers? Have you studied them all?
That's exactly my point. I don't know very much about Viking theology. What I do know I know from reading historical fiction (Bernard Cornwell) and I know next to nothing about Indian theology and philosophy (although I would love to have a serious conversation with a devout sikh one day). And as a result, you won't catch me making sweeping pronouncements about what Vikings or Indians believe. And yet here we have some dude on Slashdot defining religion (not even just Christian religion!) and a bunch of chuckle-head moderators giving him +1 insightful for re-affirming their own ignoran prejudices.
One of the problems with these guys is that they all begin with the a-priori assumption that god does exist.
Which illustrates exactly how ignorant this whole smug anti-religious sentiment. "A lot of these guys", huh? How about one of the greatest Christian writers of all time: Dostoevsky. He'e s personal hero of mine, and let's see how his version of Christian faith holds up against your stupid assertion that "these guys.. all being with a-priori assumption that god does exist":
It is not as a child that I believe and confess Jesus Christ. My hosanna is born of a furnace of doubt. ~ Fyodor Dostoevsky
"I will tell you that I am a child of this century, a child of disbelief and doubt. I am that today and will remain so until the grave. How much terrible torture this thirst for faith has cost me and costs me even now, which is all the stronger in my soul the more arguments I can find against it. And yet, God sends me sometimes instants when I am completely calm; at those instants I love and feel loved by others, and it is at those instances that I have shaped for myself a Credo where everything is clear and sacred or me. This Credo is very simple, here it is: to believe that nothing is more beautiful, profound, sympathetic, reasonable, manly and more powerful than Christ; and I tell myself with a jealous love not only that there is nothing, but that there cannot be anything higher. Even more, if someone proved to me that Christ is outside truth, and that in realitythe truth were outside Christ, that I should prefer to remain with Christ rather than with the truth." - Fyodor Dostoevsky
You want to explain how this fits into your little pigeon-holed version of all religion? For crying out loud, look at Kierkegaard. He's largely considered one of the fathers of existentialism, and you think he doesn't know about doubt?
So, to repeat: I don't sound off about Viking theology because I know full-well that I'm ignorant. And you won't catch me trying to define religion because anyone who tells you in 1 or 2 sentences what religion is will sound like an idiot to anyone who knows what they're talking about. I know just enough about religion, and Christian theology in particular, to know that the trite stereotypes are infantile straw men next to some of the actual Christian thinkers out there.
Agustine's work presumes a literal creation, one which conflicts with the reality of evolution. Let's face facts - most of the arguments (untestable, unprovable waffle) from these philosophers have been overtaken by the real world analysis of science.
Sure, if you think that the height of Christian philosophy was the Middle Ages. I guess you should take a list over here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_theologians Notice that 20th century and 21st century have their own categories. Do you have an Bonhoeffer to go with your Augustine? Any C. S. Lewis? Anybody at all from that list?
I've got no idea what a frequently testable religious claim would be if it's not quantifiable or testable. Presumably you are referring to anecdotal evidence ("I prayed and I got better") ignoring the "I prayed, but I didn't get
Religion and science are antithetical. Religion is based on untestable claims and dogma.
It's really pathetic that you can get modded +4 insightful by not knowing what the hell you're talking about. I mean seriously, how much religion have you studied? Kierkegaard? Augustine? Aquinas? This is just argument-from-definition. "I define religion to be based on untestaable claims and dogma". Nevermind that:
1. religious claims are frequently testable, even if the data is not quantifiable or transferable.
2. science is inherently untestable (see: "law of causation")
But hey, if it makes you feel better to draw a big line in your head and have "science" on one side and "religion" on the other, I suppose it has served its (unscientific) purpose.
I think science is great because -it works-
Yeah. Because nothing bad has ever been done in the name of science.
Religion on the other hand...
And nothing good has ever been done in the name of religion.
I thought it was the Christian right that was supposed to see everything in stark black-and-white...
1. Personal Experience
According to the book of Cordelia Fine ("A mind of it's own : how the brain distorts and deceives") I should be very wary of people who establish truth solely though personal experience. Given the book was written based on mountains of experiments by psychologists world wide, brain scanning techniques etc, and not 1500 years ago, I think i'll take it's recommendations more seriously.
I agree. Personal experience is tricky. It should not be used in isolation. It should be used with whatever applicable evidence can be gathered as well as the application of reason and logic. However your position - that we should only accept those claims which are scientific (falsifiable hypotheticals subject to quantifiable, repeatable exeperimenation) is untenable.
2. The Faith of Science
The philosopher Hegel pointed out that a fundamental irrational aspect of science is believe in casaulity. We can observe A and then B, but we can never directly observer the causation between the two. We can only infer causation.
Of course, it's actually worse than that. In order to believe in the scientific you have to believe in causation first. In other words, it is necessary to assume causation in order to use the scientific method because the scientific method can't work without causation. So even if it were possible to directly prove causation (and it's not) it would still be necessary to act on the assumption that it holds prior to establishing any evidence of whether or not it holds.
Individual scientific theories are testable, falsifiable, quantifiable, etc. but the scientific paradigm itself is not. Instead, we simply assume causality and then notice, after the fact, that we get all sorts of functioning scientific theory and applicable technology. Every time causality works as expected this reinforces our faith (and it is faith) in causality.
This is the same model I apply to religous faith. It is entirely rationaly, and merely the act of operating on insufficient evidence but in accord with the best evidence and reason available.
Ah, the old "you haven't criticised what -i- believe in" line. Heard it too many times to be interested. All versions of religion are stupid, because they aren't based on testable claims, in fact the opposite is true.
For the record that is not my position. I do not believe that Mormonism, or my particular take on Mormonism has a lock on rational faith. I believe it is common to many denominations of Christianity as well as many non-Christian faiths.
Most people take their religion on blind faith which is why there is such a strong correlation b/w a parent's religion, and their children's.
Agreed. But that's a statement of what most people do and not of what religion is.
I notice that in your second sentence you subtly change the goalposts from "is religion true" to 'the role of religion'.
The only "cute" thing is your apparent insistence that the aim of science is epistemological certainty about the world. Certainty has been dead since Descartes, my friend, and it's never coming back. I don't think it's useful to ask if religious claims are true without qualification or if scientific claims are true without qualification because "truth" - sans any doubt, uncertainty, or room for error - is impossible for humans to achieve.
I have read a lot of the stuff that the religious write, and it's crap (the emperor's new clothes comes to mind). Philosophers can be interesting (Peter Singer is,and he's an atheist. So too was Nietzsche).
As have I. But here is the evidence of your prejudice. While I believe that atheists are wrong on the fact of God's existence, I have no chip on my should that causes me to spout such absurdities as "stupid atheism is a tautlology". Some of the philosophers I revere the most (French atheist existentialist like Sartre, Camus, and deBeauvoir) are (as the name implies) atheist. I
And of course this is completely bass-ackwards. Religion and science are antithetical. Religion is based on untestable claims and dogma. Science is based on repeatable observations for gathering facts, and theory to provide a consistent framework to explain them.
Your statement is more indicative of prejudice than anything else. Not all religions are based on "untestable claims and dogma". In fact, a great many religions rely on personal experience and experimentation, and are differentiated from science by the nature of the data collected (unquantifiable) and not by an embrace of blind faith. You have done just what I criticized: taken one version of religion (the stupid version) and conflated it with religion in general.
The bible itself (just as one example) decries this stupid approach to religion in John 7L17:
"17 If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself."
Translation: test the doctrine out in your life and through personal experience you will come to know if it is true or not.
Furthermore it is trivial to see that religion without testing and experimentation is frought with moral dilemmas. If the point of religion is to accept dogma without reason, than there is no moral distinction between someone who accepts religion A and religion B, and therefore God is unjust to differentiate between the two.
So I've just illustrated the obvious moral problems with blind-faith based religion and the scriptural basis for Christianity (which I'm not claiming is unique in this regard) to establish a reason and evidence based approach to religion.
The problem is that you, like many young materialists, are so wrapped up in ridiculing the stupid version of religion that you're unwilling to consider the possibility that other and less intellectually retarded versions may exist. Try talking to a philosopher of religion or a trained theologian and I think your preconceptions about the role of reason in religion will be challenged.
Science, on the other hand, is certain *intended* to be as you describe. But you're contrasting religion at it's worst with science at it's best. The fact of the matter is that while what you say is theoretically true about science (and theoretically false about religion) in practice science (e.g. the body of professional scientists, publications, and the theories and work they produce) departs radically from "true science".
Michael Crichton gives several excellent examples of this regrettable trend in his essay "Aliens Cause Global Warming": http://michaelcrichton.com/speech-alienscauseglobalwarming.html
Here are a few quotes:
nd in Green Bank, West Virginia at the new National Radio Astronomy Observatory, a young astrophysicist named Frank Drake runs a two week project called Ozma, to search for extraterrestrial signals. A signal is received, to great excitement. It turns out to be false, but the excitement remains. In 1960, Drake organizes the first SETI conference, and came up with the now-famous Drake equation:
N=N*fp ne fl fi fc fL
Where N is the number of stars in the Milky Way galaxy; fp is the fraction with planets; ne is the number of planets per star capable of supporting life; fl is the fraction of planets where life evolves; fi is the fraction where intelligent life evolves; and fc is the fraction that communicates; and fL is the fraction of the planet's life during which the communicating civilizations live.
This serious-looking equation gave SETI an serious footing as a legitimate intellectual inquiry. The problem, of course, is that none of the terms can be known, and most cannot even be estimated. The only way to work the equation is to fill in with guesses. And guesses-just so we're clear-are merely expressions of prejudice. Nor can there be "informed guesses." If you need to state how many planets with life choose to communicate, t
Spec is definitely on to something here. And I think it comes down to defining religion and science in terms of their function to society as opposed to their content or methodologies.
Inherently religion is supposed to guide people to God/salvation/enlightenment/etc. That is it's stated purpose. But in terms of historical function religion became a powerful political force and for that reason was corrupted. It was easy to exploit religious concepts (especially authority) to subvert a system ostensibly about progression into a system that was in actuality about domination. But the domination was no intrinsic to religious theology, it was intrinsic to any human institution viewed as authoritative.
I would go even farther and say that politico-religion is directly opposed to theological-religion. It's not that there's something wrong with organized religion, per se, it's that organized religion is just too tempting a target for hijacking. And since religions have been around for several thousand years there has been a constant war of attrition as religious powers grew and encompassed political, economic, and military realms.
The antidote to this, or so it at first appeared, was the Enlightenment and the age of reason. Science directly undercut the authority of religion by providing answers to the kinds of questions religion was supposed to provide answer to that had more explanatory power. As a result, the religious sphere of influence became drastically restricted, religious power in the political, economic, and military realms was curtailed, and therefore religion was a less potent vehicle of political domination.
The tragedy is that science itself has come to be the new vehicle of political domination. Just as there's an inherent conflict between politico-religion and theological-religion, there's an emerging concept between politico-science and rational-science.
So while there's a great hullaballoo about the conflict between religion and science the real conflict has always been and always will be the conflict between reason and domination. Religion has a bad name these days, and most people who speak negatively of it are referring the political version of it, the "blind faith", anti-rational version of religion. But if the definition of religion is "a series of untestable and unverifiable dogmas which are adhered to with irrational zeal" than science itself is in serious danger of becoming religion.
Apparently you keep missing the fact that not everyone has your beliefs. A fetus isn't "somebody" to everyone.
Yeah, and Jews weren't "somebody" to everyone, and blacks weren't "somebody" to everyone, and Mormons weren't "somebody" to everyone, and women weren't "somebody" to everyone, etc. It is a matter of scientific fact that an unborn human being is a living human being. If you can explain your rationale for stripping them of human rights, I'm willing to hear it.
We're just going around and around in circles, so I'm ending this discussion.
Perhaps this stems from your unwillingness to defend your points. You claim that an unborn human being has no right to life because they are not self-sufficient. Strictly speaking, an infant is not self-sufficient either. Can infants be electively killed? Dialysis patients are most certainly not biologically self-sufficient. Can dialysis patients be electively killed? Do you have some explanation for this position?
In addition, you continue to maintain that you are pro-choice and pro-life without addressing my criticisms of this position. You believe that unborn human beings do not have a right to life. This is not a pro-life position. Despite your claims that your position is rooted in a desire not to dictate your morality onto others, the actual logic of your position has nothing to do with that. It is rooted firmly on the principle that if you are not born you do not have a right to life.
There's no reason that this argument must necessarily be circular. Feel free to respond to either of these positions and the discussion can continue. But you are right that as long as you claim your reason for being pro-choice is one thing despite the fact that the actual logic is an entirely different thing the argument will go round-and-round.
You didn't ask a question, not about "killing an innocent person accidentally".
Don't you think that's nitpicking? Consider me asking the question now: do you see the difference between killing a person after a long process to ensure they are guilty (although the process is not perfect) and killing a person that is known, beyond any possibility of doubt, to be innocent? If a convicted felon is innocent, the fact is that their execution is an example of a failure in a system that is designed to prevent this from happening. So it's not a failure of the *principle* of the death penalty, but the *practice* of the death penalty.
Abortion, on the other hand, invariably and without doubt kills innocent human beings and is therefore killing innocent human beings in principle and not just now and again on accident.
You can still make the case that the death penalty is not worth the cost of innocent lives. Or you can make the case that we should not kill guilty people either. But I don't think it's possible to make the case that the death penalty is equivalent to abortion. But, I would actually like to hear your answer to the question: can you see the difference between killing someone who has been tried and found guilty and killing someone who is by definition innocent?
My experiences are different in that almost every pro-lifer I've talked didn't want any exceptions. Then again that's a small number or people, most of those that I knew their position on abortion were pro-choice.
All I can say is that I've been involved in the pro-life movement for many, many years. I've volunteered for the VSHL (Virginia Society of Human Life, VA affiliate of the NRLC) attended NRLC conventions, etc. I co-admin an online pro-life group with 40,000 members. And the "no abortions, no exceptions" crowd is a distinct minority.
That doesn't change the fact that an execution of a criminal is the killing of someone - theStorminMormon
Ah, if they were innocent then they weren't a criminal. - Falconwolf
Please, Falconwolf, can you respond to my question? I asked if you could see the difference between killing an innocent person accidentally, when every reasonable precaution has been taken to ensure they are not innocent and killing a person who is known to be innocent? If an innocent person is killed by capital punishment it is a mistake, not intentional, and it takes place in spite of safe guards. In an elective abortion the victim is a *known* to be innocent beyond any shadow of a doubt.
Do you see the difference between killing someone who is thought to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and kiling someone who is known to be innocent beyond a reasonable doubt?
Yea, it's a hackneyed argument pro-lifers bring up. Whereas slaves were capable of self sufficiency most fetuses aren't. What they are are parasites.
This proves my point, Falconwolf. While you claim to be pro-choice and pro-life your actual point of view is pro-choice and *not* pro-life. You do not believe that all human beings have an equal right to life. You believe that a human being who is not self-sufficient has less of a right to life. I'm willing to put pretty good money on the fact that you think this applies to a fetus but probably doesn't apply to a dialysis patient. Which means it's not actually lack of self-sufficiency, but specifically dependence on another human being. (Stop me if I got that wrong. Maybe you think 'aborting' dialysis patients is OK too since they aren't self-sufficient.)
In which case it's pretty clear that you, like many pro-choicers, are conflating the issue of what rights the unborn human being deserves with the issue of what the cost to the mother is of giving thsoe rights to the unborn human being. In self-defense cases you don't say that "the person was threatening me and therefore had no right to life". Someone who is trying to murder you still has a right to life, but your right to self-defense supersedes their right to live.
But in the abortion case, people get confused and think that the cost to the mother (in terms of the costs, physical, emotional, and financial of being pregnant) somehow impact the right of the unborn human being to life.
I have never seen someone successfully explain this to me. If you'd like to explain why relying on another human being for support in any way impacts your right to life, please have at it. But it's going to take more than simply labelling the unborn human being a "parasite".
No I haven't. Notice before I said I was pro-life, however I will not force my personal beliefs on someone else.
And you are not pro-life. You're trying to have it both ways. You're tying to say you just don't want to "force my personal beliefs on someone else". It's great rhetoric, but awful logic. The actual foundation of your belief on abortion is that you think not all human beings deserve human rights. Specifically, you think non self-sufficient human beings have no right to life (although I doubt you actually think that consistently - see the dialysis patient example). This has nothing to do with personal beliefs. This has to do with the civil rights of the unborn. Specifically: you don't think they have any.
Someone who thinks that unborn human beings have no right to life is not pro-life. Period.
Oh, when I said fetuses were parasites, those aren't my words. A female friend once argued that and it's stuck to me.
It's the victory or rhetoric over reason.
There's a 4... to arrest someone that they reasonably believe present and have probable cause to believe committed a crime.
Again: with probable cause. That's my whole point. If the police already know - or have good cause to suspect - that you've committed a crime they can act. But they can not *preemptively* search your house to try and find evidence. That's my whole point. They have to have a reason *first*.
Thank you for your well-reasoned response. However I think it does tend to prove my point.
:-)
We'll see about that!
I understand that most (or at least many) people who advocate what are currently called "Pro-Life" positions are good decent people with the best of intentions. But that is precisely the point. You will not be the enforcers. The people who waterboard and extraordinarily render at whim, who once tortured people who were advocating for what are now among the "pro-choice" rights will be the enforcers.
Are recreational drug users waterboarded? Are kids who take their parents Rx drugs tortured? This is the kind of hysteria I describe. There's no reason whatsoever to think that if abortion is made illegal then suddenly the CIA will be sending covert agents to waterboard women and their primary care physicians. I mean, just for starters, the CIA isn't even allowed to conduct operations on American soil (and by all accounts actually follows that), and I leave it to you to explain how on earth torturing abortion providers is going to take a precedent over finding terrorists. The FBI, local law enforcement, etc. do not waterboard. There's been no evidence at all, none, that this is the case. There has not even been an accusation that this is the case.
I understand your logic in that you say that it does not follow that absolute enforcement is required for a law to be effected. After all, the government has not mandated governors in all cars despite the speed law
Here's what I think you don't understand, however. Your arguing from a pro-choice perspective. You did not mention once in your entire post the right to life of the unborn. I'll get to that later. If you argue abortion without reference to the unborn human being than it becomes a victimless crime and all of your examples - drug use, the RIAA, etc. - apply.
But I want you to at least understand the pro-life position. Imagine, just for the sake of argument, that the unborn human being deserves human rights. The simplest way to do that is to imagine the argument is not abortion but infanticide. (I'm not trying to prove that abortion really is like infanticide, and I don't even believe it, but I want you to stand in the shoes of someone who believes all human beings have a right to life.) If it was legal to kill infants up to 1 year, would you see banning this practice as encroaching upon or expanding on liberty?
What I'm getting at is this: the pro-life side wants more protections for citizens, not less. You see this as increasing government control precisely because you completely omit any consideration of the unborn human being from the question. But to a pro-lifer the protecting of the unborn goes hand-in-hand with increasing liberty. I'm in favor of limiting abortion *and* amenable to legalizing drug use *and* incredibly opposed to the RIAA and their conception of intellectual property rights. I want less government and more individual liberty, but if a segment of our society has no right to life how can I say that I am pro-liberty?
The point I'm getting across is that the view of the unborn human being is the fulcrum on which this question turns. If the unborn human being merits no consideration then your comparison of the pro-life side with anti-liberty forces is accurate because the liberty of the woman is being curtailed and there's no increase in liberty for someone else. However if the unborn human being merits consideration then the pro-life position is no more limiting liberty than abolitionists or civil rights protestors limited liberty. (I do not actually believe that women who get abortions are in any way similar to slave owners. Women in crisis pregnancies are quite literally under extreme duress. I do think it may be an apt description of doctors who provide them.)
Fundamentally though you're missing the point that in order to make abortion illegal in this country you have to o