If you discriminate Mormons for holding those views by, for example, speaking unkindly, making prejudiced remarks, not welcoming to a barbecue, or refusing to hire one for a job, then that’s not okay.
This is something that really irritates me. Speaking unkindly about someone’s philosophy is not discriminatory and making remarks about how bad someone’s religious ideology is is not being prejudiced.
First, I am not suggesting that you cannot disagree with a religion over specific beliefs. I am not at all indicating that my faith is immune from your criticism because of the different view on this topic.
I’m not talking disagreement, I’m talking about finding a religious philosophy to be fabricated, unlikable, and out of place in modern society. I find many political philosophies to fit that description and no one screams bigotry when I am hard on those views, so I don’t think it’s reasonable to give religion a free pass because it means more to some people. I think it’s extremely problematic to do so. Look at the conversation with Warbler that I had a couple months ago where people are still willing to give the Pope a free pass even on matters of the child sex abuse cover ups purely because he’s the pope and Catholics like him so he shouldn’t be criticized too harshly. Well, he doesn’t a free pass from me, no matter how fancy his hat and robes are.
Actually, I feel there is a great deal of bigotry regarding political philosophies. Of course, there are those groups who clearly hold abhorrent views, but I believe there is a great deal of prejudice just between the two major American parties.
I said already that you are welcome to critique the pope for his specific actions. Likewise, I have said multiple times that you can critique my church.
I critique, but I go beyond that in that I actively dislike the entire religious system and think that it’s bad. I don’t hold anything against people that follow it, although I do hold much against those that have active leadership roles in the hierarchy of religious systems. My point is that I don’t think that’s bigotry and I’m wondering if you do.
But referring to the rest of your post, you are actually very wrong. A great deal of prejudice has been exhibited towards people for the religious beliefs. It has served as the underpinning for the violation of the rights of religious groups throughout history, even going so far as to lead to violence. My own faith has a long history of bigotry towards it. People have been vandalous and violent towards my faith. You can disagree without being discriminatory, but many people use their disagreement to get to the point of bigotry without even acknowledging the inherent evil of their actions.
I don’t condone bigotry, violence, or vandalism and I know my history so you don’t need to lecture me on that. Nobody on this forum has displayed any bigotry toward you unless there’s a troll or two that I’m forgetting about.
I don’t feel like I am even approaching a lecturing attitude. If anyone is coming off as condescending in this conversation, I don’t feel it’s me. And I did not indicate that anyone was treating me in a bigoted fashion (though there are certainly those who have here in the past). In fact, this was never the point of my argument. You have sidetracked the conversation, which was actually that my church may not be perfect, but they make a great deal of effort to display Christ-like love towards everyone, including homosexuals. I was trying to point out that people who paint Mormonism as completely hostile towards homosexuals are being unfair, and I was using a parallel example in Frink’s attitude towards my faith.
He never said it was completely hostile. I think his point and mine is that saying “we hate the sin but love the sinner and only exclude them from certain elements of our faith and system” doesn’t give you a gold star in our book. I think of Mormonism as a religion that perpetuates negative, archaic, and dare I say hostile (to a degree) attitudes toward homosexuals. I also will admit that I have mixed feelings in the sense that I do believe anyone would be better off not being baptized into the church, so I can’t say I feel bad for the kids who dared to belong to the wrong parents and can’t get baptized. I just think your justification is faulty.
If the Mormon I’m welcoming to my barbecue doesn’t talk about his faith when no one wants to hear about it, then I’m cool with him or her, but they’re devout in their religion and believe that my lifestyle is abhorrent and a crime against the almighty, then I would probably find it uncomfortable to be welcoming.
You are welcome to feel that way. My point is that you should not withhold your neighborly kindness just because you find something that other individual holds to be contrary to your moral worldview.
How contrary does it have to be? I wouldn’t exclude any Mormons just because they’re Mormons. Members of my family are Mormon, in fact. But I would definitely exclude people like the man that we’re mourning in this thread because he represented and led something I consider corrupt, antiquated, and morally objectionable in countless ways.
Well, that is your right. Unfortunately, you have demonstrated in times past that you misunderstand my faith.
I don’t understand your own personal faith, and I’m not going to pretend to be versed in Mormon theology, but I definitely understand the very real and negative consequences Mormonism has more than you do. The ostracizing, the lack of transparency, the financial corruption, the exclusive nature of the hierarchy within the church’s community itself. Maybe in your specific community this hasn’t been a problem, but it isn’t some made-up problem that is cherrypicked out of an out-of-context news article like you’ve claimed it to be in the past.
To be truthful, even if I were not Mormon, I would rather accept the man we are mourning in this thread to any event because, regardless of how I differ with him on the topic of homosexuality, I believe he has lived nothing but a life of kindness towards others. On the other hand, I’d have a harder time accepting someone with your attitude towards humanity in general, as your views approach sociopathy and misanthropy. I don’t mean to turn this into an ad hominem attack, but I have a hard time accepting lecturing on how to treat humanity from someone who has admitted to hating the majority of people. Perhaps that is, in fact, the primary reason you have such a negative outlook on my faith, while refusing to see the good.
I don’t blame you for not wanting me at your barbecue, I’m incredibly unlikable, but while I don’t doubt that I’m a barely functional insane person, you’ve got it all wrong about me being a sociopath. You can say I’m callous and mean all you want, but I value other people. The main thing I look for in other people is how they treat their fellow human beings. When it comes to general kindness, I don’t think I value that all that much. To me, any person no matter how selfish and awful can be kind and friendly if they want to be and then fuck you over when they feel like it. I want the people that interact with me to feel comfortable and feel unthreatened, and I want to be trustworthy and helpful. And I do all of this even if the person I’m interacting with pisses me off because I get that they, like me, are deserving of decent treatment. You’re right, I don’t like most people. I find them unpleasant and insipid most of the time, and I’m always saying I hate them, but as crazy as it sounds (and as you’re not afraid to tell me, I am pretty crazy) I still think I value treating people with decency a lot more than most on this earth do. It probably doesn’t translate well over the internet because I’m very sarcastic and upfront. My problem is that I have low tolerance for things that I disagree with, so when I disagree I can’t help but point it out. But I thought that was okay in this thread since the title does call for us to interrogate you.
How would it be if I invited my neighbors to a barbecue, but only those who abstained from sex before marriage? Would that not seem discriminatory?
That’s very personal information that you’d probably have to ask people for in order to even know. My example only applied to people with obnoxious outward displays of religiosity, but you could do that. It wouldn’t be a very fun or spontaneous party though. It would be discriminatory, but not in a particularly objectionable way since it just sounds like the opposite of a singles’ party.
It’s just an example, and not necessarily a realistic one. Its purpose is illustrative, but there definitely are people who openly and obnoxious in sharing such information. And while perhaps a lame example, it still is an example of unkindness and exclusivity.
How about politics? Are you going to justified in excluding people of a different political affiliation from you from jobs, parties, or other events simply because their personal philosophy differs from mine and can be changed? No, it remains bigoted to do so.
If the person I was hiring never shut up about their political views and repeatedly brought them to work even when told clearly not to, then yes I would fire them. I wouldn’t feel good about it. I bet I’d hate firing people, but if they pushed me to it I’d have to. If someone never shut up about their boring politics that are irrelevant to everyone but them (and we all know a person like that), then I would exclude them from jobs, parties, and other events, but not simply because they differ from me.
You seem to conflate several arguments. I am talking about someone who just holds those views, regardless of how open or quiet they are about them.
And I’m only talking about the brazen and open ones that are annoying.
Look, you came into my thread (or barbecue, if you will) with a strong opinion, which you have not shied away from. Yet, I continue to allow you to post these things without demanding you leave. Quite frankly, I’m not a fan of your negative opinions of those whose views differ from yours. However, I can still tolerate your opinion, as mutable as it is or objectionable as I find it.
I thought we were supposed to interrogate you, and I tolerate your opinion too. I tolerate almost everything that differs from my views, I’m just not quiet (in the appropriate places) about how I feel.
Refusing to hire someone for a job is different, but again, if they’re extremely outspoken and don’t keep their religion to their self while on the job, then I wouldn’t want to hire them. No matter how much you try to do this, it not compelling or fair to equate not liking someone’s philosophy with not liking someone’s immutable characteristics.
This is truly where people draw a false line. Yes, homosexuality is more immutable and unchangeable than a religious philosophy, but mankind’s draw to religion is certainly immutable, and the passion and strength that causes a person to cling to such views are not changed as easily as deciding what to have for breakfast. How many people have died for their faith? Why were they so committed? In terms of influence and self-definition, I’m afraid that the characteristics of one’s faith are not as different from sexual preference as you seem to believe.
I judge people based on what they believe, think, and the way they behave. I don’t consider religion any different than what someone believes about politics or literature or anything like that. I don’t think religion is inherently worthy of respect. It’s just more of people’s opinions and I don’t think those are inherently worthy of respect either. If what someone believes makes sense to me or is rational in some way, then I’ll respect it, but if not then I don’t. And just because I don’t respect someone’s beliefs doesn’t mean that I have something against that person on a personal level.
I get it. I don’t like a lot of opinions either. But if you truly feel this way, why did you even bring this topic up? That was my point about the whole thing. Just because Church leadership opposes homosexuality in a general sense doesn’t mean they are trying to be hurtful or unkind on a personal level. There is a great deal the Church has done that is good and kind, even towards homosexuals. My point was that, if people take issue with the Church’s views, they might want to remember all the good the Church has endeavored to do as well. To label an entire thing as evil based on only a few isolated points while neglecting the overall picture is ignorant and bigoted. It applies to sexual orientation, religion (which, again, was merely an illustration), politics, race, sex, etc.
I think the good that the church has done isn’t unique enough to the Mormon philosophy for it to redeem the religion itself. It’s like saying that Jimmy Fallon gave money to charity or something. Lots of people give money to charity, and of course it’s a nice thing to do, but he’s still Jimmy Fallon.