To those who don't understand why so many of us hate organized religion

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Funny...for all the whining you do about me being "obsessed" with you, here you are bringing me up.

And lying about what i have ever said in the process.

Focking hilarious.

 

Just "mocking" you.

[Gepetto 1,454]

There should be some kind of warning on threads like this. I just wasted 10 minutes of my life and am no smarter for it.

[naomi 360]

If Joe the Mormon wants to see his grandfather Tom the Catholic in heaven, then why doens't Joe get Tom to convert in life? Why does Joe wait until Tom is dead and buried to convert him? Again, it's because it's easier to take advantage of the dead than it is the living.

 

I often babysit some mormon kids, and have gotten to know the family really well over the years. The dad is kinda high up in the local "stake", and he has Mormon books around the house. I read a chapter on this practice in one of them, and evidently, it's like a charge they feel altruistically. Mormonism started in the mid 1800's so they have a lot of ground to cover.

 

Here's a reason why the Mormon church might be concerned with Jews in particular, and why Jews might be more alerted to their baptism by proxy practice:

We believe in the literal gathering of Israel and in the restoration of the Ten Tribes; that Zion (the New Jerusalem) will be built upon this, the American continent.

 

According to the offical LDS website:

One thing that should be made perfectly clear about Mormon baptisms for the dead is that each deceased soul has the personal choice to accept or reject it. There is nothing in Mormonism that states that the person who is being baptized by proxy must accept this ordinance; he or she is simply given the opportunity to choose.

[davebg 0]

I often babysit some mormon kids, and have gotten to know the family really well over the years. The dad is kinda high up in the local "stake", and he has Mormon books around the house. I read a chapter on this practice in one of them, and evidently, it's like a charge they feel altruistically. Mormonism started in the mid 1800's so they have a lot of ground to cover.

Naomi, glad you joined the conversation. You obviously take your own religious beliefs pretty seriously, so I'd really like to hear your take on some of the topics raised in this thread. In particular, I'd like to know what you think about two things:

 

1-People who are religious (especially here at the Geek Club) frequently complain about all of the attacks against religion on the part of those who do not believe. However, for the most part, all these non-believers want is to be left alone and not have someone else's beliefs thrust upon them or to have to pay/subsidize them via our tax dollars, despite our supposedly secular government. Meanwhile, organized religion makes no effort to hide the fact that thay actively try to expand the reach of their religion and beliefs throughout society. Why do those who are religious so often interpret the 1st Ammendment as carte blanche permission to practice their religion however they see fit, even when it directly infringes upon the religious beliefs of others...whether they believe in something else or nothing at all? Why do those who are religious so often interpret this country's protections regarding freedom of religion as only applicable to those who are religious? Why do they think that their belief in something is more deserving of protection than someone else's belief to not believe?

 

2-Have you ever spoken to (or plan to speak to) this Mormon family that you know so well about this subject? Have you ever discussed with them the conflict between their own altruistic feelings for this act and the animosity that it raises by those who want nothing to do with Mormonism...who want Mormonism to show them and their beliefs the same respect that these Mormons would expect to receive? How can a religious group that has been victimized and mistreated as much as Mormonism show such a lack of respect for the beliefs of others? I'm not saying that they do not have good intentions, but one would have to be completely ignorant/blinded by their own teachings to not see how this could be viewed.

[Sho Nuff 720]

Just "mocking" you.

 

By being a lying doosh?

[Recliner Pilot 61]

There should be some kind of warning on threads like this. I just wasted 10 minutes of my life and am no smarter for it.

 

If you are looking to get smarter WTF are you doing in the Geek Club?

[Sho Nuff 720]

Naomi, glad you joined the conversation. You obviously take your own religious beliefs pretty seriously, so I'd really like to hear your take on some of the topics raised in this thread. In particular, I'd like to know what you think about two things:

 

1-People who are religious (especially here at the Geek Club) frequently complain about all of the attacks against religion on the part of those who do not believe. However, for the most part, all these non-believers want is to be left alone and not have someone else's beliefs thrust upon them or to have to pay/subsidize them via our tax dollars, despite our supposedly secular government. Meanwhile, organized religion makes no effort to hide the fact that thay actively try to expand the reach of their religion and beliefs throughout society. Why do those who are religious so often interpret the 1st Ammendment as carte blanche permission to practice their religion however they see fit, even when it directly infringes upon the religious beliefs of others...whether they believe in something else or nothing at all? Why do those who are religious so often interpret this country's protections regarding freedom of religion as only applicable to those who are religious? Why do they think that their belief in something is more deserving of protection than someone else's belief to not believe?

 

2-Have you ever spoken to (or plan to speak to) this Mormon family that you know so well about this subject? Have you ever discussed with them the conflict between their own altruistic feelings for this act and the animosity that it raises by those who want nothing to do with Mormonism...who want Mormonism to show them and their beliefs the same respect that these Mormons would expect to receive? How can a religious group that has been victimized and mistreated as much as Mormonism show such a lack of respect for the beliefs of others? I'm not saying that they do not have good intentions, but one would have to be completely ignorant/blinded by their own teachings to not see how this could be viewed.

 

1. Why don't you go ahead and show a list of all the posts here at the Geek Club started by the religious and how they are shoving it down your throat? I bet you can't find many. Yet...there are several like this. If all you want to be is left alone...why are the majority of threads about religion started by the non-believers...bashing religion? And why do we use the 1st amendment as permission to practice our religion? Because it grants us that right. Just as it grants you the right not to practice...it gives us the right to practice. There is nothing I can do to infringe on your right. I can't force you to believe. But I have the right to tell you about my own faith if I see fit. You have the right to ignore it. As to your next question about interpretation...I see it as the other way around. Those who don't believe seem to interpret it as a freedom from religion and fail to recognize that the rest of us are free to practice.

[SweetMoolah 0]

I am new here (seriously), long time lurker and FF player for several years that checks in every so often for advice on my FF teams. Occasionally, I will read through some of the threads and posts here. Some of it is funny, some interesting and some of it is a bit bizarre, to say the least.

 

Somebody finally motivated me to the point that I went so far as to register, so I could respond... thanks to davebg, I guess.

 

 

I came to the conclusion, after reading through this entire thread, that he doesn't hate "organized religion", rather he hates "mormons" and from what little he knows about us and our religious beliefs, that is a scary position to be in. I appreciate naomi checking in and offering some perspective, based on firsthand experiences with those "cultists, the mormons". It seems that after davebg had some additional information, he calmed down somewhat. I guess it's easy to get worked up over something you don't know much about.

 

FYI - I am a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints and I voted yes on proposition 8, so that tells you where I'm from. As a group we are being singled out and criticized heavily for supporting and voting on that proposition when in actuality we represent a very small percentage (perhaps less than 2% of the people that voted yes). It makes me wonder why the african american and hispanic communities weren't targeted as strongly, as they voted yes overwhelmingly.

 

It isn't easy being a "Mormon Cultist" as some people seem to think we are. It is simply not the truth. I wonder whether naomi thinks the family she occasionally babysits for fits that description? honestly... and for those here who have friends or people they know that are Mormon, do you generally believe they are a "cult"? and if so, why? I believe that opinion comes from people who don't really know any Mormons or are uneducated about their beliefs and practices.

 

The explanation naomi gave for the practice of baptism for the dead was correct. I have a friend who converted from Judaism 25 years ago (before I knew him) and he has submitted many of his ancestors names, some of whom were victims of the holocaust, to have this done. However, the baptism (as explained) is meaningless unless the individual person it is being done for accepts it. My own opinion is that some will, but most will not accept it.

 

Without going on and on, I feel bad for davebg. I don't know him but I don't believe his feelings about organized religion are right. I guess it all depends on your perspective. For example, I love the Lakers and hate the Celtics (this has been the case for many years now...) but at the same time I realize that my feelings about the Celtics are unfounded. Those feelings are based on my perception and show a lack of understanding on my part of who the players are and what they represent and do. I'm pretty sure if I got to know them and learned to appreciate who and what they are I would likely not feel that way.

 

Anyhow, I don't know how to use all the icons, I'm a rookie and I'm not sure how this will be received... so rip away if you feel the need.

[davebg 0]

1. Why don't you go ahead and show a list of all the posts here at the Geek Club started by the religious and how they are shoving it down your throat? I bet you can't find many. Yet...there are several like this. If all you want to be is left alone...why are the majority of threads about religion started by the non-believers...bashing religion? And why do we use the 1st amendment as permission to practice our religion? Because it grants us that right. Just as it grants you the right not to practice...it gives us the right to practice. There is nothing I can do to infringe on your right. I can't force you to believe. But I have the right to tell you about my own faith if I see fit. You have the right to ignore it. As to your next question about interpretation...I see it as the other way around. Those who don't believe seem to interpret it as a freedom from religion and fail to recognize that the rest of us are free to practice.

I think you misunderstood the point that I was making.

 

When I say that organized religion attempts to force their beliefs on others, I was not referring to a post at the Geek Club. If that was all it was...a bunch of anonymous posters on a message board...then no big deal. As you said, you have the right to say what you want and I have the right to ignore it.

 

Unfortunately, organized religion attempts to force their beliefs and ideals on others IN REAL LIFE, in ways that cannot be ignored like so many useless RP posts. Whether we are talking about social issues, such as gay marriage or education issues, like whether to teach intelligent design in biology class...the result is the same...religious groups attempting to make their beliefs the law of the land.

 

In the end, it all comes down to one thing...mutual respect. From where I am sitting, I see a much lower amount of respect coming from the religious towards the non-religious than the other way around. The non-religious just want to be left alone...they do not want someone else's religious values being forced upon them in the form of law. Meanwhile, many religions feel it is their duty to do just that...spread the word of their God in all aspects of life.

 

When you fail to respect the right of people to believe something other than what you believe in, then how can you possibly expect to have your views and beliefs respected in kind?

 

It is this utter lack of respect on the part of organized religion that results in garbage like Mormons thinking that it's OK for them to ignore the manner in which people lived their lives in an effort to spread their beliefs and swell their numbers.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Yeah dave, cuz you show so much respect to religious people.

[titans&bucs&bearsohmy! 2,745]

I am new here (seriously), long time lurker and FF player for several years that checks in every so often for advice on my FF teams. Occasionally, I will read through some of the threads and posts here. Some of it is funny, some interesting and some of it is a bit bizarre, to say the least.

 

Somebody finally motivated me to the point that I went so far as to register, so I could respond... thanks to davebg, I guess.

 

 

I came to the conclusion, after reading through this entire thread, that he doesn't hate "organized religion", rather he hates "mormons" and from what little he knows about us and our religious beliefs, that is a scary position to be in. I appreciate naomi checking in and offering some perspective, based on firsthand experiences with those "cultists, the mormons". It seems that after davebg had some additional information, he calmed down somewhat. I guess it's easy to get worked up over something you don't know much about.

 

FYI - I am a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints and I voted yes on proposition 8, so that tells you where I'm from. As a group we are being singled out and criticized heavily for supporting and voting on that proposition when in actuality we represent a very small percentage (perhaps less than 2% of the people that voted yes). It makes me wonder why the african american and hispanic communities weren't targeted as strongly, as they voted yes overwhelmingly.

 

It isn't easy being a "Mormon Cultist" as some people seem to think we are. It is simply not the truth. I wonder whether naomi thinks the family she occasionally babysits for fits that description? honestly... and for those here who have friends or people they know that are Mormon, do you generally believe they are a "cult"? and if so, why? I believe that opinion comes from people who don't really know any Mormons or are uneducated about their beliefs and practices.

 

The explanation naomi gave for the practice of baptism for the dead was correct. I have a friend who converted from Judaism 25 years ago (before I knew him) and he has submitted many of his ancestors names, some of whom were victims of the holocaust, to have this done. However, the baptism (as explained) is meaningless unless the individual person it is being done for accepts it. My own opinion is that some will, but most will not accept it.

 

Without going on and on, I feel bad for davebg. I don't know him but I don't believe his feelings about organized religion are right. I guess it all depends on your perspective. For example, I love the Lakers and hate the Celtics (this has been the case for many years now...) but at the same time I realize that my feelings about the Celtics are unfounded. Those feelings are based on my perception and show a lack of understanding on my part of who the players are and what they represent and do. I'm pretty sure if I got to know them and learned to appreciate who and what they are I would likely not feel that way.

 

Anyhow, I don't know how to use all the icons, I'm a rookie and I'm not sure how this will be received... so rip away if you feel the need.

 

We have an official Mormon at the geek club now? Awesome! This site just gets more diverse all the time.

 

So lemmie ask you, what's the deal with the sacred underwear?

[davebg 0]

I came to the conclusion, after reading through this entire thread, that he doesn't hate "organized religion", rather he hates "mormons" and from what little he knows about us and our religious beliefs, that is a scary position to be in.

You would be wrong. I hate all organized religion...including the one I was raised with. However, I am mature enough and confident enough in myself and my beliefs that I can appreciate the right of others to believe in what they wish. Above all else, I consider myself to be an American and the right to practice (or not) my beliefs as I see fit, in a country where we have a distinct separation of church and state is one of, if not the single most cherished ideal that this country was founded upon.

 

FYI - I am a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints and I voted yes on proposition 8, so that tells you where I'm from. As a group we are being singled out and criticized heavily for supporting and voting on that proposition when in actuality we represent a very small percentage (perhaps less than 2% of the people that voted yes). It makes me wonder why the african american and hispanic communities weren't targeted as strongly, as they voted yes overwhelmingly.

Mormons may have contributed relatively little in the way of voters, but what type of financial contribution did your church make in its effort to promote this legislation? From what I've read, it was quite a tidy sum of cash. How much money did your church give to the lobbyist groups that promoted this legislation? And let's not even get into the tactics used by groups such as ProtectMarriage.com, which sent letters targeting companies that had the nerve to voice their own opinions in opposition to Proposition 8? Kind of hyporcitical for the Momron church to be upset about people availing themselves of their right to freedom of speech when they are critical of the public stance that the church took, while simultaneously defending their own free speech rights, which were used in an almost "mafioso" manner to promote their own views, no?

 

Without going on and on, I feel bad for davebg. I don't know him but I don't believe his feelings about organized religion are right. I guess it all depends on your perspective. For example, I love the Lakers and hate the Celtics (this has been the case for many years now...) but at the same time I realize that my feelings about the Celtics are unfounded. Those feelings are based on my perception and show a lack of understanding on my part of who the players are and what they represent and do. I'm pretty sure if I got to know them and learned to appreciate who and what they are I would likely not feel that way.

Yeah, thanks, but no thanks. I don't need you to feel bad for me or to pray for my soul. I just want you to live your life the way you see fit and for me to live my life the weay I see fit. Unfortunately, your Celtics/Lakers example clearly demonstrates that you just do not get it. Have the Celtics ever attempted to tell you what type of medical procedures you can have or who you could marry? Didn't think so.

 

Unfortunately, you have been so thoroughly indoctrinated with the teachings of your church that this line of thought is utterly incomprehensible to you.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

You would be wrong. I hate all organized religion...including the one I was raised with. However, I am mature enough and confident enough in myself and my beliefs that I can appreciate the right of others to believe in what they wish. Above all else, I consider myself to be an American and the right to practice (or not) my beliefs as I see fit, in a country where we have a distinct separation of church and state is one of, if not the single most cherished ideal that this country was founded upon.

 

And here I thought this country was founded upon the Constitution.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Yeah, thanks, but no thanks. I don't need you to feel bad for me or to pray for my soul.

 

Damn straight! If he want input on your soul he better grab some chicken wings and Bud Light and head over to my house. I'm open to suggestions.

[davebg 0]

Yeah dave, cuz you show so much respect to religious people.

To paraphrase: You reap what you sow.

 

This is a classic question of the chicken or the egg...only it's very easy to answer in this case. Who disrespected who first? Which group is the one whose very teachings often implore their followers to force their beliefs on others? Orgnazied religion has been self-promoting themselves through whatever means they have had at their disposal for thousands of years.

[davebg 0]

And here I thought this country was founded upon the Constitution.

Constitution = law.

 

Ideals = something greater.

 

But hey, what do I know about this? I only studied and have a degree in criminal justice. What field do you have a degree in again?

[titans&bucs&bearsohmy! 2,745]

Kind of hyporcitical for the Momron church to be upset about people availing themselves of their right to freedom of speech when they are critical of the public stance that the church took, while simultaneously defending their own free speech rights, which were used in an almost "mafioso" manner to promote their own views, no?

 

Its also fairly hypocritical for an organization that has a nasty history of allowing men to marry multiple underage girls to have the balls to ever utter the words "protect" and "marriage" in the same sentence.

 

 

But whatever, hypocracy is what religion is all about no?

[SweetMoolah 0]

We have an official Mormon at the geek club now? Awesome! This site just gets more diverse all the time.

 

So lemmie ask you, what's the deal with the sacred underwear?

 

It's not "sacred underwear" and physically speaking not a lot different from regular underwear. It does have spiritual meaning and significance to those that wear it.

 

Just a reminder of some promises I made with God to try and live my life the way I think I should live it. Do I live my life that way all the time? No, but I still wear it.

[titans&bucs&bearsohmy! 2,745]

It's not "sacred underwear" and physically speaking not a lot different from regular underwear. It does have spiritual meaning and significance to those that wear it.

 

Just a reminder of some promises I made with God to try and live my life the way I think I should live it. Do I live my life that way all the time? No, but I still wear it.

 

Oh ok. I didn't know the significance of the underwear. So every time you get a wedgie, its a reminder to live better. That's kinda nice. So do you wash it yourself, or does one of your wives do it?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(Noob fishing is fun) (I'm just focking with you, don't get your sacred underwear in a bunch.)

[davebg 0]

Just a reminder of some promises I made with God to try and live my life the way I think I should live it. Do I live my life that way all the time? No, but I still wear it.

So, it's OK for you to pick and choose which teachings of your religion you are not going to follow, but when it comes to others violating the teachings of your religion, of which they are not a member, that's a problem that should be corrected via unconstitutional ammendments?

[Recliner Pilot 61]

I only studied and have a degree in criminal justice.

 

So you are qualified to be a prison guard. Congrats!

[SweetMoolah 0]

Its also fairly hypocritical for an organization that has a nasty history of allowing men to marry multiple underage girls to have the balls to ever utter the words "protect" and "marriage" in the same sentence.

But whatever, hypocracy is what religion is all about no?

 

That "nasty history" you speak of was a LONG time ago, when it was accepted, and not that "nasty". The reasons for why it was instituted in the first place aren't easily understood in today's social climate. When the political process and government of the United States decided it was no longer acceptable, the church respected the vote of the people, accepted it and did away with the practice. Those who practice plural marriage today are not members of the Church.

 

Likewise, those people who attempted to change the definition of traditional marriage, by ignoring the vote for traditional marriage 8 years ago should respect the vote of the majority on proposition 8 today and accept it.

[titans&bucs&bearsohmy! 2,745]

That "nasty history" you speak of was a LONG time ago, when it was accepted, and not that "nasty". The reasons for why it was instituted in the first place aren't easily understood in today's social climate. When the political process and government of the United States decided it was no longer acceptable, the church respected the vote of the people, accepted it and did away with the practice. Those who practice plural marriage today are not members of the Church.

 

Likewise, those people who attempted to change the definition of traditional marriage, by ignoring the vote for traditional marriage 8 years ago should respect the vote of the majority on proposition 8 today and accept it.

 

No, the crazy cults who have a dozen child brides are not official members of the LDS. But they are offshoots of the LDS and have LDS in their names. And really, when was that ever "easily understood in the social climate?"

[davebg 0]

Likewise, those people who attempted to change the definition of traditional marriage, by ignoring the vote for traditional marriage 8 years ago should respect the vote of the majority on proposition 8 today and accept it.

So, if/when there is a public referendum to ban the Mormon church (in spite of the fact that such a thing would be inherently unconstitutional) and it passes, you and the rest of your fellow Mormons will just "accept it"?

 

It's funny how people like you support majority rule...until the majority turns their focus on the things that you hold dear.

[SweetMoolah 0]

So, it's OK for you to pick and choose which teachings of your religion you are not going to follow, but when it comes to others violating the teachings of your religion, of which they are not a member, that's a problem that should be corrected via unconstitutional ammendments?

 

I don't "pick and choose", I try to live all of the teachings. However, I'm not perfect and I mess up once in awhile. Does that mean I'm picking and choosing? No, it means I mess up once in awhile.

 

So, I appreciate your effort to engage me in some sort of heated argument that leads to nowhere but I won't take the bait. You are free to make whatever ridiculous comment you want to make.

 

Seriously, people (including members of our church) violate the teachings of my religion all the time and that is fine, that is their choice. People are allowed to determine their own destiny.

 

As far as "unconstitutional amendments" go, blame the judges that voted to ignore the peoples vote and write their own "constitution" regarding proposition 22 and later, proposition 8.

 

What if 4 judges decided that McCain should be the president because Obama and his ideas were unconstitutional? Is that okay? Of course not.

 

How is promoting the ideal of marriage between a man and a woman unconstitutional? A child deserves a mother and father. The people voted and the majority felt it was important, why isn't that good enough?

[titans&bucs&bearsohmy! 2,745]

How is promoting the ideal of marriage between a man and a woman unconstitutional?

 

The equal protection clause.

 

A child deserves a mother and father.

 

What does gay marriage have to do with kids? Last I checked, the phags can't breed.

 

The people voted and the majority felt it was important, why isn't that good enough?

 

The same reason it wasn't good enough when the majority thought it was important for black people to use separate water fountains.

[SweetMoolah 0]

What does gay marriage have to do with kids? Last I checked, the phags can't breed.

 

Exactly, so why is marriage so important to them? This will help explain my belief.

 

http://www.lds.org/library/display/0,4945,161-1-11-1,FF.html

 

Also, comparing gheys and marriage with blacks and drinking fountains makes no sense, these are entirely different issues.

[davebg 0]

What does gay marriage have to do with kids? Last I checked, the phags can't breed.

Actually, it is relevant. One of the measures, which passed, this past election was one to bar gays from adopting children in Arkansas. Arkansas has a rampant problem in the sense that there are three times as many children needing a home as the state has available homes. As a result of this measure being passed, approximately 400 children will be removed from loving homes and placed back into the system.

 

This was another ballot initiative heavily sponsored by the likes of the Mormon church. Apparently they feel it is better to place children into overcrowded, underfunded orphanages and similar facilities, rather than letting those children be raised in a loving home if the parents are gay.

[davebg 0]

Exactly, so why is marriage so important to them? This will help explain my belief.

 

http://www.lds.org/library/display/0,4945,161-1-11-1,FF.html

I admit to only skimming the linked article, but tell me...does it contain any sort of justification for the Mormon church's stance on the subject that doesn't involve the teachings of the church? I mean, you can understand where someone who doesn't adhere to your church's teachings would find nothing valid in that article, right?

 

Of course, that just brings us full circle to the crux of the argument...namely that you have no right to impose your religious beliefs upon me.

 

Also, comparing gheys and marriage with blacks and drinking fountains makes no sense, these are entirely different issues.

How so? You are denying equal rights to a specific group of people. We're not talking about criminals who have broken the law and have therefore forfeited their rights by their actions.

[SweetMoolah 0]

I admit to only skimming the linked article, but tell me...does it contain any sort of justification for the Mormon church's stance on the subject that doesn't involve the teachings of the church? I mean, you can understand where someone who doesn't adhere to your church's teachings would find nothing valid in that article, right?

 

Of course, that just brings us full circle to the crux of the argument...namely that you have no right to impose your religious beliefs upon me.

 

How so? You are denying equal rights to a specific group of people. We're not talking about criminals who have broken the law and have therefore forfeited their rights by their actions.

 

First off, it isn't an "article" it's a proclamation stating the church's belief regarding the sanctity of marriage and the importance of the family in society, ASKING government and elected officials to "promote those ideals designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society." Is there something about this that needs justification? Is there something about it you disagree with? other than the fact that it comes from the Mormon Church? If you read the proclamation from the perspective of not being written by a church, is it more legit? Seriously, is there something in there that you find offensive or detrimental to society as a whole?

 

While I do not have any right to impose my religious beliefs on you (I happen to agree), do you have any right to impose your secular beliefs on me? I don't have a "right" but I do have a responsibility as a citizen to promote what I think is proper and allow others to choose whether or not they agree with it.

 

Lastly, the argument of equal rights regarding marriage is not valid. Who ever said marriage was a "right"? There are already arrangements in place to provide constitutional rights to all and domestic partnerships do that. Had the amendment not passed I would have been fine with it. I wouldn't have agreed with it, but I would have been fine with it and moved on.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

The equal protection clause.

 

How is the rights of gays any different than the rights of heterosexuals when it comes to marriage?

[davebg 0]

First off, it isn't an "article" it's a proclamation stating the church's belief regarding the sanctity of marriage and the importance of the family in society, ASKING government and elected officials to "promote those ideals designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society." Is there something about this that needs justification? Is there something about it you disagree with? other than the fact that it comes from the Mormon Church? If you read the proclamation from the perspective of not being written by a church, is it more legit? Seriously, is there something in there that you find offensive or detrimental to society as a whole?

I have no problem with any group promoting the role of "family" in our society. The problem is your definition of what is a family. The reasons given in the proclamation as to why marriage must be between a man and a woman all return to the same source: Because your God said so.

...marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God...

 

...Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such, each has a divine nature and destiny...

 

...We further declare that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife...

 

...Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan....

 

While I do not have any right to impose my religious beliefs on you (I happen to agree), do you have any right to impose your secular beliefs on me? I don't have a "right" but I do have a responsibility as a citizen to promote what I think is proper and allow others to choose whether or not they agree with it.

Is it really an "imposition" for me to expect that you respect my desire to not have religion in my life? Which is a greater "imposition"? Me having to fend off attempts to insert the religious beliefs of others into my life or asking them to keep their beliefs to themselves while giving them carte blanche to practice their religious beliefs on their own? Again, to use the gay marriage example...if two men or two women want to commit themselves to one another, then how does that impact your life? Nobody is stopping you from living your life as you see fit. Nobody is saying that you need to bring these people into your social circle. If you do not wish to associate with them, then don't.

 

Lastly, the argument of equal rights regarding marriage is not valid. Who ever said marriage was a "right"? There are already arrangements in place to provide constitutional rights to all and domestic partnerships do that. Had the amendment not passed I would have been fine with it. I wouldn't have agreed with it, but I would have been fine with it and moved on.

Where does it say in the Constitution that black people have a "right" to drink at the same water fountain as whites?

 

ETA: The reason that you "would have been fine with it" had it not passed is because is does not directly impact your daily life in any way. Try to put yourself in their shoes. You want to marry the person of your dreams...the person who you love with all of your heart, but can't because a bunch of people who don't know you voted to deny you the same freedoms that they enjoy. Do you still think you'd be able to be so nonchalant about it then? The fact that you would have been able to accept it and move on had it not passed just goes to underscore how little this would change anything about our society from our point of view. Yet, despite that, you and your church vigorously fought to defeat your opponents, who very much feel the impact of the outcome.

[SweetMoolah 0]

 

I took the bait and now the discussion is headed where I thought it would. You seem incapable of distinguishing between the religious/spiritual vs. the secular aspect of the issue. You also have a distinct inability to understand anything but your own perspective.

 

You mentioned earlier that you grew up with religion. I would assume that some of the principles and values (good or bad) that you subscribe to today were influenced by the teachings of that religion.

 

Religious freedom is an integral part of our country and society for a variety of reasons. Our forefathers used it as a basis from which to formulate and create a new government. If you would prefer to live in a country void of freedom of religious expression and worship, then perhaps North Korea, Cuba or Vietnam are more suited to your desires. Maybe communism being pushed down your throat is better...

 

Nobody is "pushing religion down your throat". You are still free to choose if you want it or not. If anything, as a society we are becoming less religious and more secular based. I don't think that is what our founding fathers fought for, but nevertheless that is what we are becoming.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

How is the rights of gays any different than the rights of heterosexuals when it comes to marriage?

 

 

Bump to see if Father Dave can answer this.

[naomi 360]

Naomi, glad you joined the conversation. You obviously take your own religious beliefs pretty seriously, so I'd really like to hear your take on some of the topics raised in this thread. In particular, I'd like to know what you think about two things:

 

1-People who are religious (especially here at the Geek Club) frequently complain about all of the attacks against religion on the part of those who do not believe. However, for the most part, all these non-believers want is to be left alone and not have someone else's beliefs thrust upon them or to have to pay/subsidize them via our tax dollars, despite our supposedly secular government. Meanwhile, organized religion makes no effort to hide the fact that thay actively try to expand the reach of their religion and beliefs throughout society. Why do those who are religious so often interpret the 1st Ammendment as carte blanche permission to practice their religion however they see fit, even when it directly infringes upon the religious beliefs of others...whether they believe in something else or nothing at all? Why do those who are religious so often interpret this country's protections regarding freedom of religion as only applicable to those who are religious? Why do they think that their belief in something is more deserving of protection than someone else's belief to not believe?

 

2-Have you ever spoken to (or plan to speak to) this Mormon family that you know so well about this subject? Have you ever discussed with them the conflict between their own altruistic feelings for this act and the animosity that it raises by those who want nothing to do with Mormonism...who want Mormonism to show them and their beliefs the same respect that these Mormons would expect to receive? How can a religious group that has been victimized and mistreated as much as Mormonism show such a lack of respect for the beliefs of others? I'm not saying that they do not have good intentions, but one would have to be completely ignorant/blinded by their own teachings to not see how this could be viewed.

 

1- Why do those who are religious so often interpret the 1st Ammendment as carte blanche permission to practice their religion however they see fit, even when it directly infringes upon the religious beliefs of others...whether they believe in something else or nothing at all?

 

I definitely can't speak for anyone whose religious. If you mean like in the example of your OP, it's kind of a bizarre way to infringe. It should be respected that some people look at it as infringing. Maybe someone would hate the idea of being in another religion's records as posthumously baptized and yeah, that strikes me as reason enough to not do it. I know I wouldn't want to be in there, but also that it has no bearing on me spiritually. Guessing for everyone else it's also not the idea that it could have spiritual bearing, but just more personal preference and relatives knowing that individual likely would not want to be in the record.

 

If our government operates as it was intended to, there shouldn't be religious oppression at work. Those who first came over here were very much motivated by escaping religious totalitarianism. The Church of England wasn't friendly to liberty of conscience, it was an official state church, and those who escaped saw that rule as a corruption of Christianity. If the bible is solely appealed to (not man, so this assumes a belief that the bible itself is not a product of man), man has no spiritual authority over man.

 

When it comes to separation of church and state, that was meant very literally. The church is not in the state, and vice versa. It does not mean that any inspiration you might call religious does not belong. If everyone was Athiestic, there would still be ideas of what's right and wrong appealed to, and naturally there would still be disagreements. Most of the founders had very strong Christian inspiration and it motivated them to be fierce supporters of liberty of conscience.

 

Alexis de Tocqueville observed in 1831, "For Americans the ideas of Christianity and liberty are so completely mingled that it is almost impossible to get them to conceive of the one without the other" With independence, they made new laws aimed at limiting the power of government over freedom of religion. Then as now, Americans used the legacy of that war and the principles from the Revolution to build their society and culture and to define the nation's ideals and identity.

"God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that His justice cannot sleep forever.

 

To the corruptions of Christianity I am, indeed, opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian in the only sense in which he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines in preference to all others...

 

I consider the doctrines of Jesus as delivered by himself to contain the outlines of the sublimest system of morality that has ever been taught but I hold in the most profound detestation and execration the corruptions of it which have been invented..."- Thomas Jefferson

 

"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here." - Patrick Henry

 

"From the day of the Declaration...they (the American people) were bound by the laws of God, which they all, and by the laws of The Gospel, which they nearly all, acknowledge as the rules of their conduct." - John Adams

 

"To the kindly influence of Christianity, we owe that degree of civil freedom, and political and social happiness which mankind now enjoy. In proportion, as the genuine effects of Christianity are diminished in any nation, either through unbelief, or the corruption of its doctrines, or the neglect of its institutions; in the same proportion will the people of the nation recede from the blessings of genuine freedom and approximate the miseries of complete despotism." -Jedidiah Morris

 

"I speak as a man of the world to men of the world; and I say to you, Search the Scriptures! The Bible is the book of all others, to be read at all ages, and in all conditions of human life; not to be read in small portions of one or two chapters every day, and never to be intermitted, unless by some overruling necessity.

 

Corruption of morals is rapid enough in any country without a bounty from government." - Daniel Webster

 

2-Have you ever spoken to (or plan to speak to) this Mormon family that you know so well about this subject? Have you ever discussed with them the conflict between their own altruistic feelings for this act and the animosity that it raises by those who want nothing to do with Mormonism...who want Mormonism to show them and their beliefs the same respect that these Mormons would expect to receive? How can a religious group that has been victimized and mistreated as much as Mormonism show such a lack of respect for the beliefs of others? I'm not saying that they do not have good intentions, but one would have to be completely ignorant/blinded by their own teachings to not see how this could be viewed.

 

Nah I've never discussed this particular topic with them. I thought about bringing it up with the mom since we've talked about other tenants and they were good conversations, she's really gracious when it comes to contentious territory, but they were discussions that happened to evolve to doctrinal differences.

[naomi 360]

I wonder whether naomi thinks the family she occasionally babysits for fits that description? honestly... and for those here who have friends or people they know that are Mormon, do you generally believe they are a "cult"? and if so, why? I believe that opinion comes from people who don't really know any Mormons or are uneducated about their beliefs and practices.

 

I don't mean this facetiously, but it depends on which definition of cult you mean. I have a lot of respect for the Mormon family that I know, but I don't have respect for a lot of LDS doctrine.

 

One of the things that gets me most is the bible warns us that there will be false prophets, and to marvel not because Satan himself comes as an angel of light. Moroni appeared as exactly that to Joseph Smith.

 

Bible (2 Corinthians 11:13-15):

13 For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.

14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.

15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.

 

Joseph Smith's testimony given in the Book of Mormon's introduction:

“While I was thus in the act of calling upon God, I discovered a light appearing in my room, which continued to increase until the room was lighter than at noonday, when immediately a personage appeared at my bedside, standing in the air, for his feet did not touch the floor.

“He had on a loose robe of most exquisite whiteness. It was a whiteness beyond anything earthly I had ever seen; nor do I believe that any earthly thing could be made to appear so exceedingly white and brilliant.

 

The Book of Mormon is considered final prophecy, yet the bible itself is presented as God's complete word.

 

"You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you." Deuteronomy 4:2

 

"...if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed. For do I now persuade men, or God? Or do I seek to please men? For if I still pleased men, I would not be a bondservant of Christ." Galatians 1:9-10

 

"For if he who comes preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or if you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted,

you may well put up with it!" 2 Corinthians 11:4 [i.e. don't tolerate heresy]

 

"Whatever I command you, be careful to observe it; you shall not add to it nor take away from it." Deuteronomy 12:32

 

"Every word of God is pure; He is a shield to those who put their trust in Him. Do not add to His words, lest He rebuke you, and you be found a liar." Proverbs 30:5-6

 

In terms of biblical end times prophecy:

"If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book." Revelation 22:18-19

 

That's the fundamental problem to start with, and then there's distinctive teachings that are not biblical if the bible is acknowledged as truth in and of itself, that came as a result of what Smith received and past on.

[EAwer 1]

proud jew here. A knowledgeable Jew would know that according to Halacha (jewish law) that this Baptism is irrelevant. A Baptism of a living Jew is irrelevant. If your mother is a Jew, you die a Jew no matter what you do ("converting") in your life.

[SweetMoolah 0]

Mormons do not claim, as members of their church, dead people who have had baptismal work done for them. Billions of people have not had the opportunity to learn about Jesus Christ in this life. 1 Corinthians 15 talks about resurrection and verse 29 specifically about the principle of baptism for the dead. It only provides an opportunity for them, if they so choose it. See the post above by EAwer.

 

The 13 articles of faith are also a very important part of church doctrine.

 

Article 11 specifically states: We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.

 

That sounds pretty tolerant and accepting of all religions and beliefs.

 

My religion gives me a set of guidelines and principles I can either choose to follow or choose not to follow. Others are invited to learn and decide for themselves. Individuals who have passed away and moved on will have the same opportunity. It is their choice to accept or reject the gospel of Jesus Christ or a baptism performed on their behalf.

 

It's not that complicated, but it sure seems to be a huge problem for some people.

[titans&bucs&bearsohmy! 2,745]

How is the rights of gays any different than the rights of heterosexuals when it comes to marriage?

 

They aren't. That's why they should be allowed to marry.

 

Dave hit the nail on the head here. Religious groups are free to belief whatever they want, and to live by those beliefs, regardless whether or not said beliefs are patently absurd.

 

However, they should not be permitted to run to the legislature and limit the freedom of others to live thier lives as they see fit.

 

Let me ask you this Sweet Moolah.

 

Your church and other proponents of gay marriage bans never couch the debate in terms of what it is, namely legislative gay bashing. Instead, you always refer to "protecting" marriage.

 

My question is this, and I've never gotten a satisfactory answer.

 

Protect it from what? I am married, and I take my vows to my wife very seriously. However, I do not view the prospect of two gay men or women making similiar vows as a threat to my marriage in any way. In fact, whether they are married or not is none of my focking business.

 

So we as a society are forced to choose between two sets of interests... On one side, a group wishes to not be denied the right (it is a right, as it is freely granted to everyone else in society) to marry whom they choose, and live their lives in a way that makes them happy.

 

On the other side, you have a bunch of people who wish to prohibit this, because their magic book, whichever it may be, says it is a sin to their version of God. Also, they wish to "protect" their marriage from some nebulous "threat."

 

Easy call IMO. Let everyone live their own damn way and stay out of each others business.

[Sho Nuff 720]

They aren't. That's why they should be allowed to marry.

 

Dave hit the nail on the head here. Religious groups are free to belief whatever they want, and to live by those beliefs, regardless whether or not said beliefs are patently absurd.

 

However, they should not be permitted to run to the legislature and limit the freedom of others to live thier lives as they see fit.

 

Let me ask you this Sweet Moolah.

 

Your church and other proponents of gay marriage bans never couch the debate in terms of what it is, namely legislative gay bashing. Instead, you always refer to "protecting" marriage.

 

My question is this, and I've never gotten a satisfactory answer.

 

Protect it from what? I am married, and I take my vows to my wife very seriously. However, I do not view the prospect of two gay men or women making similiar vows as a threat to my marriage in any way. In fact, whether they are married or not is none of my focking business.

 

So we as a society are forced to choose between two sets of interests... On one side, a group wishes to not be denied the right (it is a right, as it is freely granted to everyone else in society) to marry whom they choose, and live their lives in a way that makes them happy.

 

On the other side, you have a bunch of people who wish to prohibit this, because their magic book, whichever it may be, says it is a sin to their version of God. Also, they wish to "protect" their marriage from some nebulous "threat."

 

Easy call IMO. Let everyone live their own damn way and stay out of each others business.

 

As I have said in this thread, I agree that the 'mos should be allowed to marry each other.

However...technically, they do have the same rights as straight people.

I, being a straight man, can also not marry another man. I have no special right that they don't have. They have the right to marry a woman just like I do.