Newtmentum! (David Weigel & Chris Moody)

[thouartgob]

Originally Posted by badhatharry

Do you really think it fruitful to play this religion is better than that religion?

Isn't that the whole point ?? Religions attacking other religions for being wrong is not just a simple pastime but a reason for existence.

[stephanie]

Originally Posted by miceelf

I guess. I might at least be interested in how the person reconciles the two.

Sure -- I think that's a valid question, although one we get uncomfortable about when the questioner seems not to respect the fact that people are tolerant of some degree of dissonance.

And aren't there limits?

Of course. I don't see a valid argument for saying the LDS are beyond them, though.

I also haven't suggested that asking the questions is inappropriate. Like I said, I differentiate between the purely theological and the theological/public policy mix. However, we are talking about whether it makes sense to oppose someone for being Mormon (vs. being some other mainstream American religion, like Catholic or Baptist), and in all of those cases I think focusing on assumptions about what someone of the religion will think about a particular issue when we have knowledge of the person's beliefs already is largely a mask for prejudice.

[miceelf]

Originally Posted by stephanie

Of course. I don't see a valid argument for saying the LDS are beyond them, though.

no. Although I think one could have said that they were in 1977.

Agree about assumptions. I like questions.

[thouartgob]

With extra bile, ignorance and grandiosity.

I can't imagine that dems could be lucky enough that this Mike Allen piece is a true measure of what is really going on but I can only hope. I also wonder if the attacks on Gingrich by the Obama team are just a simple way to draw votes his way. Pieces such as these with Obama operatives stating their "fears" of an opponents surge would probably draw skeptical attention from any other candidate BUT Newt or the latent Cain. By the way Cain did admit he cribbed from the Pokemon Movie for his motivational speeches. I miss this guy now

[Sulla the Dictator]

Originally Posted by Florian

For sheer absurdity, I know of no belief more absurd, or more historically pernicious, than the belief held by Catholics and Protestants for centuries, that the descendents of the Jews who killed (the Jew) Jesus are guilty of a crime...... without which there would have been neither a Christ (χριστός, translated from the Hebrew משיח maschiah, messiah) nor a religion bearing his name.

It doesn't seem to me to be particularly shocking, or unique, for an organization to be hostile to a particular out group. Nor does that seem to be a matter localized to religion, if you notice European treatment of Gypsies, historically.

It rivals the most absurd and pernicious beliefs of Islam, of which Apple never tires reminding us.

No it doesn't. Because it no longer exists.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Originally Posted by badhatharry

polygamy is an accepted form of marriage in many religions.

I know, but if someone has a problem with it, it seems wrong to me to compare it to a symbolic act which, if it wasn't symbolic, would be objectionable.

But it is symbolic.

Still no women as priests in the Roman Catholic Church...

I don't have a problem with that. After 2,000 years, tradition holds a value all its own.

Do you really think it fruitful to play this religion is better than that religion?

No, I just don't like leftist attacks against the Catholic Church.

[stephanie]

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator

I know, but if someone has a problem with it, it seems wrong to me to compare it to a symbolic act which, if it wasn't symbolic, would be objectionable.

But it is symbolic.

On the broader question, you are making a valid distinction, IMO, between theological beliefs and claims about public policy (polygamy should be legal). However, to the extent you are explaining it based on the idea that transubstantiation is not actually supposed to involve the consumption of the Body and Blood of Jesus, you are wrong. The Catholic belief, of course, is that it's literally the Body and Blood, the Real Presence.

It seems odd to defend the Catholic belief as unobjectionable based on your view that the Catholics are wrong in their belief.

The Catholic understanding of "symbolic" in this context does not mean that there's no real change to Body and Blood, that it's just metaphoric or imaginary, as you seem to be suggesting.

[hilbert90]

Apple wanted crazy beliefs. I gave them. I'm not sure what this "comparability" is about. Either your belief has some sort of evidence to support it or it is unfounded and hence crazy. All the ones I listed have no evidence to support them.

Now if comparability has to do with a religion continuing to officially spew policy that we have good reason to believe is harmful then I'd say that condom use, gay marriage, and stem-cell research are just a few of the many that fit under that category. If the point is that from a thirty years in the future perspective we can look back and say racial discrimination was horrible, then I'd say that in thirty years when there is perfect marriage equality the Catholic church will have the exact same type of answering to do.

The other type of comparability could be some sort of measure on craziness, but this will only be defined in terms of cultural acceptance of beliefs. If the point is that Catholicism is more mainstream and hence has more acceptance and hence is less crazy, then of course Catholicism wins but only because it is a tautology from the definition of our measure of craziness. If 90% of people were LDS, then clearly the Catholic idea of transubstantiation (most Catholics do not take this to be symbolic by the way!) would be more crazy than any Mormon belief.

[Florian]

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator

It doesn't seem to me to be particularly shocking, or unique, for an organization to be hostile to a particular out group. Nor does that seem to be a matter localized to religion, if you notice European treatment of Gypsies, historically.

I did not say that Christian antisemitism was unique or uniquely shocking. I said it was the consequence of a manifestly absurd Christian belief, namely that the Jews were collectively guilty of a crime, the killing of Jesus. It was that absurd belief that made the Jews an "out" group.

No it doesn't. Because it no longer exists.

Irrelevant.

Originally Posted by badhatharry

polygamy is an accepted form of marriage in many religions.

And there's Badhatharry's silver bullet, some religions endorse polygamy. That means that there's nothing wrong with it. Of course, many religions demand human sacrifice. I'd like to see you defend that. "Human sacrifice is an accepted form of religious devotion in many religions."

Originally Posted by badhatharry

Do you really think it fruitful to play this religion is better than that religion?

Yes, it is. A religion that demands human sacrifice is worse than a religion that does not. A religion that demands that apostates are punished by death is worse than one that does not. Et cetera.

Mormonism is idiotic.

Originally Posted by stephanie

More significantly, however, I fail to see why objectionable Mormon beliefs in the 1970s relate to the fitness of Mitt or Huntsman for the presidency.

Of course, the only reason Mitt and Huntsman are Mormons is because they were raised as Mormons. Mitt is much more devout than Huntsman, having been a bishop in the church, so I'm more likely to say it affects one's view of Mitt's fitness. Also, Mitt's grandfather was a polygamist, who fled to Mexico because he refused to give up his polygamy. If I recall correctly, he has claimed that this was "persecution". He's also a big fan of the (Mormon writer) Cleon Skousen, who is completely crazy.

Originally Posted by stephanie

It's entirely possible for people to be in a religion without agreeing with all the beliefs thereof, let alone all the beliefs the religion held in the past. If the Mormons were still maintaining the views or had done so recently enough for Mitt or Huntsman to interact with them as adults (and perhaps that's the case -- I'd have to check the timeline), then it might be interesting to see how they did. It's not that different than considering the actions of politicians who grew up in segregated America and in churches that were largely segregated at the time. The Southern Baptist Conference, for example, had its own issues, but Jimmy Carter's personal actions were considered, not those of his denomination.

I've brought up the history of the Southern Baptists multiple times, at one time calling its history on racial matters "putrid". The ever honest and reputable rcocean decided to claim that I had called the entire denomination "putrid", which may how he perceives reality. I do think that individuals affiliated with the Southern Baptists should be held accountable for the fact that it only apologized in 1995 for its putrid racial history. But not Jimmy Carter. Carter, despite his many, many flaws, was a strong advocate of civil rights, at a time when and place where it was politically perilous, so that pretty much neutralizes it for me. It'd been perfectly fair to question him about the Curse of Ham, had he not been an advocate of black equality.

Originally Posted by hilbert90

Apple wanted crazy beliefs. I gave them. I'm not sure what this "comparability" is about.

Just answer my question: how gullible do you have to believe that God told Joseph Smith that polygamy was OK, only to change its mind when His superior, the United States Congress, decided that Utah couldn't join if it allowed polygamy?

Originally Posted by hilbert90

Now if comparability has to do with a religion continuing to officially spew policy that we have good reason to believe is harmful then I'd say that condom use,

The Catholic Church has important philosophical reasons for opposing condom use. Looking around me, I'd say that condom use should be mandatory for 95% of people, but just because you don't share (and probably aren't aware of) the Church's philosophical reasons, doesn't mean you get to label it "crazy' without argumentation.

Originally Posted by hilbert90

gay marriage,

You should listen to Dan Savage. Apparently, I'm supposed to be outraged because someone can't call himself married and have relations with 10 other men a year. I think the injustice will make me cry.

Originally Posted by hilbert90

and stem-cell research

See my second point. I've often expressed my contempt for egg worshipers, but even the craziness of a pro-life position isn't Mormon crazy, or Angel Moron(i) crazy.

Originally Posted by hilbert90

we can look back and say racial discrimination was horrible, then I'd say that in thirty years when there is perfect marriage equality the Catholic church will have the exact same type of answering to do.

At the moment, there's perfect "divorce" equality, but the Catholic Church is holding firm.

Originally Posted by hilbert90

If 90% of people were LDS, then clearly the Catholic idea of transubstantiation (most Catholics do not take this to be symbolic by the way!) would be more crazy than any Mormon belief.

Ah, you're a relativist. Well, no use having a conversation with you then.

Originally Posted by badhatharry

Well, at the most basic level, you believe in God. You also believe that religion has some kind of connection to God. I don't believe in God. I think of religion as a cultural artifact. I think religion is interesting and rich and valuable but that value has nothing to do with the existence of God.

Funny, I think there are more atheist Republicans/conservatives here than atheist Democrats/liberals.

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by apple

And there's Badhatharry's silver bullet, some religions endorse polygamy.

It really has nothing to do with wrong or right. Polygamy is not unheard of. I'd say (although I'd have to look it up and don't have the time right now) that at one time in the history of mankind it was the most prevalent type of marriage. What is your basis for saying that there's something wrong with it or that it is akin to human sacrifice?

Originally Posted by badhatharry

Polygamy is not unheard of.

It was unheard of in 1830s America. Joseph Smith only advocated polygamy so the piece of dirt could take 200 wives - just like Muhammad, although Joseph Smith liked his women somewhat older (but not that much).

Originally Posted by badhatharry

I'd say (although I'd have to look it up and don't have the time right now) that at one time in the history of mankind it was the most prevalent type of marriage. What is your basis for saying that there's something wrong with it or that it is akin to human sacrifice?

Your mistake is to assume that there can't be anything wrong with something that is common, or prevalent. Nearly all societies throughout history have been slaveholding societies, with exceptions like the Allemanni. Does that mean that there is nothing wrong with slavery?

For that matter, who says that there's something wrong with human sacrifice. The Aztecs did it, the Phoenicians did it, hell, Bronze Age Greeks may have done it (see the funeral pyre for Patroclus).

Originally Posted by Florian

I did not say that Christian antisemitism was unique or uniquely shocking. I said it was the consequence of a manifestly absurd Christian belief, namely that the Jews were collectively guilty of a crime, the killing of Jesus. It was that absurd belief that made the Jews an "out" group.

The only statement that's absurd is this one, and I won't insult your intelligence and education by thinking that you actually believe this. The major reason Jews were an "out" group because they did not accept the dominant religion, not because of anything having to do with killing Jesus. Of course, you know this, living in the land of the Cathars and the Huguenots.

[Florian]

Originally Posted by apple

The only statement that's absurd is this one, and I won't insult your intelligence and education by thinking that you actually believe this. The major reason Jews were an "out" group because they did not accept the dominant religion, not because of anything having to do with killing Jesus. Of course, you know this, living in the land of the Cathars and the Huguenots.

The Jews were an "out" group and were persecuted for it, both because they did not accept the dominant religion and because the dominant religion regarded them as collectively guilty for the killing of Jesus. I will not insult your intelligence either, but I suggest you do a little reading about the history of Christian anti-semitism before you accuse me of making absurd statements.

Religious intolerance is not a one-way street. For example, your constant harping on the absurd beliefs of Muslims cannot be explained only by the absurd beliefs of Muslims.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Originally Posted by Florian

The Jews were an "out" group and were persecuted for it, both because they did not accept the dominant religion and because the dominant religion regarded them as collectively guilty for the killing of Jesus.

You notice that the usual solution to "Jewish problems" wasn't slaughter, as it was with Cathars, but either compulsory conversion or expulsion. Even the Spanish usually went this route, and they're the boogymen of all this modern hysteria about the Medieval age.

So Apple's observation about a religious "out group" is more accurate. Gypsies that were Catholic, Lutheran, or otherwise, were always considered gypsies. Same with blacks. Jews very quickly were assimilated once the religious matter was settled.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Originally Posted by stephanie

On the broader question, you are making a valid distinction, IMO, between theological beliefs and claims about public policy (polygamy should be legal). However, to the extent you are explaining it based on the idea that transubstantiation is not actually supposed to involve the consumption of the Body and Blood of Jesus, you are wrong. The Catholic belief, of course, is that it's literally the Body and Blood, the Real Presence.

Of course. That is the belief. It isn't real though. That is my point.

It seems odd to defend the Catholic belief as unobjectionable based on your view that the Catholics are wrong in their belief.

I find the Catholic church appealing as a cultural institution. If the beliefs of Catholics are necessary to continue producing the outcomes I prefer, then I will defend their beliefs.

The Catholic understanding of "symbolic" in this context does not mean that there's no real change to Body and Blood, that it's just metaphoric or imaginary, as you seem to be suggesting.

It is imaginary to me. Even congregants these days accept that transubstantiation is a spiritual matter, not a practical, real thing which would allow an allusion to cannibalism. I doubt anyone actually ever felt otherwise. That used to be pagan slander.

[miceelf]

Originally Posted by apple

Funny, I think there are more atheist Republicans/conservatives here than atheist Democrats/liberals.

I noticed that as well.

[stephanie]

Originally Posted by hilbert90

Apple wanted crazy beliefs. I gave them. I'm not sure what this "comparability" is about.

apple's original question.

(I don't agree with apple wrt his argument here, but this idea that it should matter whether LDS believe there are lots of gods or, similarly, that Catholics believe in transubstantiation both seem to me wrong. In fairness to apple, that wasn't actually what he was saying.)

[stephanie]

Originally Posted by apple

Funny, I think there are more atheist Republicans/conservatives here than atheist Democrats/liberals.

Percentage wise that might be true. Of regular posters at the forum, there are probably more non atheist liberals than non atheist conservative types.

[stephanie]

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator

Of course. That is the belief. It isn't real though. That is my point.

If someone says "Catholic belief X is wacky" it's not a good defense (nor one likely to be appreciated by Catholics) to say "Catholic belief X is not true, so it can't be wacky." Nor is it a good defense to say Catholics say they believe X but they really believe Y and Y isn't wacky.

If transubstantiation is a weird belief, you can't argue against that claim by saying that of course it's not true. It's still a weird belief. (I have no problem with it, personally, weirdness aside.)

I find the Catholic church appealing as a cultural institution. If the beliefs of Catholics are necessary to continue producing the outcomes I prefer, then I will defend their beliefs.

It's not really a defense to say "well, of course this is nonsense, but it's socially beneficial nonsense." The Catholic Church wouldn't say you should believe its teachings regardless of truth. Obviously, the Catholic Church claims Catholicism is true. Now, from your POV, I'd say it's a fair defense to say that it's not sensible in your mind, but you don't think the objections in question are fair ones.

It is imaginary to me.

Sure, but again that doesn't affect the claim, which was that Catholics believe weird things, not that they somehow make those weird things to be true in the minds of nonbelievers. Specifically, it was that Catholics believe in cannibalism, which I wouldn't say is accurate (depends on how one defines cannibalism, I suppose) or particularly interesting, but it's not a false claim simply because you, as a nonbeliever, don't believe in the Real Presence.

Even congregants these days accept that transubstantiation is a spiritual matter, not a practical, real thing which would allow an allusion to cannibalism. I doubt anyone actually ever felt otherwise.

Again, it sounds as if you are claiming that Catholics don't really believe in transubstantiation, or perhaps in the Real Presence at all. Obviously some don't (many, although the Church likes to blame inadequate catechesis), but if you are denying what is a fundamental argument between Catholicism and much of Protestantism, that's not really a defense.

As far as how people felt, I'm not sure what you are saying, but I'd recommend investigating Corpus Christi miracles.

That used to be pagan slander.

Right, but that it was getting at a particular understanding of the teaching from the earliest days is actually a common argument used now to respond to the more Reformed or fundamentalist (since they are the ones who usually bother arguing) claim that it should be taken as not real, just a memory.

[hilbert90]

You keep saying, "But that isn't Mormon crazy." I just need to point out how disturbing this is. Your example was that they at some point in the past didn't accept black people as full members. What real harm was that doing? Sure that's not a good thing, but here is an analogy. Take someone from Soviet Russia and ask them whether the ideas of Stalin or Ghandi are crazier. Because you are an insider the outsider's (Ghandi) beliefs will look crazier. How crazy a belief looks to you has no bearing on how harmful those beliefs are in reality.

But what in the world? Every belief I listed in that last post causes very real harm to people. Yet due to your insider position you are defending those beliefs as less crazy than a belief that didn't really cause harm.

Telling people not to use condoms causes the spread of STI's. That is a harmful side effect of that belief. Gay marriage is a no brainer. Those are real, loving families that get badly hurt by this policy. The Catholic church would rather send a child into the system and possibly not ever be adopted than allow a loving gay couple to adopt him/her. Stem cell research is the most promising medical research for curing many horrible diseases and obsessing over a couple cells severely limits this research.

You want to talk about crazy or gullible? It's how brainwashed you have to be to call beliefs that cause serious harm in the world as less crazy than a belief that certain people can't join your religion.

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by apple

It was unheard of in 1830s America. Joseph Smith only advocated polygamy so the piece of dirt could take 200 wives - just like Muhammad, although Joseph Smith liked his women somewhat older (but not that much).

It was probably never legal in this country, which is one of the reasons the Mormons were persecuted but that doesn't make it wrong which is what you asserted. It was illegal and culturally unacceptable. I don't know why Smith advocated polygamy nor do I care.

Your mistake is to assume that there can't be anything wrong with something that is common, or prevalent. Nearly all societies throughout history have been slaveholding societies, with exceptions like the Allemanni. Does that mean that there is nothing wrong with slavery?

For that matter, who says that there's something wrong with human sacrifice. The Aztecs did it, the Phoenicians did it, hell, Bronze Age Greeks may have done it (see the funeral pyre for Patroclus)

I don't presume that something that is prevalent cannot be at the same time wrong. Maybe you can show me where I said that. And, you still haven't told me why polygamy is wrong. I guess I can assume that the reason that it is wrong is because you say it is. It is your personal opinion and you expect people to agree with you without giving a reason. You then equate it with human sacrifice and slavery, which is silly.

I can tell you why slavery is wrong. I can tell you why human sacrifice is wrong. But polygamy seems to me to be a form of marriage, if it is engaged in voluntarily, that has no wrong attached to it. However since it is illegal in America it's wise not to engage in it...at least openly.

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by hilbert90

Telling people not to use condoms causes the spread of STI's.

now that's crazy!

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by apple

Funny, I think there are more atheist Republicans/conservatives here than atheist Democrats/liberals.

Well, there are a lot of different types here. I haven't kept an accurate count. I would say, however, that the conservative atheists here are generally tolerant of religious views, unlike say the Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris crowd. I would call that a realistic view because religion has merit and isn't going away any time soon.

Originally Posted by hilbert90

Your example was that they at some point in the past didn't accept black people as full members.

For about 2/3 of its history, in fact, not at some random point.

Originally Posted by hilbert90

What real harm was that doing?

Yeah, what harm can racism do? Or the death penalty for interracial marriage?

Originally Posted by hilbert90

Take someone from Soviet Russia

I hate to break it to you, but communism has fallen in Eastern Europe.

Originally Posted by hilbert90

and ask them whether the ideas of Stalin or Ghandi are crazier. Because you are an insider the outsider's (Ghandi) beliefs will look crazier. How crazy a belief looks to you has no bearing on how harmful those beliefs are in reality.

Crazy is not synonymous with harmful. Non-crazy beliefs can be very harmful, and crazy beliefs can be very good. But the Mormon Church is extremely irrational and morally deficient, and has always been. Can you tell me what kind of a man would accept the claim that God told Joseph Smith that polygamy was OK, and retracted it when Congress passed a joint resolution?

Originally Posted by hilbert90

Telling people not to use condoms causes the spread of STI's.

Because people won't use condoms? Funny, the Catholic Church is also telling them to be monogamous and to refrain from adultery. How much STI-spread would there be if people were actually listening to the Church (as you claim they are)? Also, you are once again glossing over the Church's philosophical reasons for its opposition to condoms - you think that ignoring them give you the right to call it crazy.

Originally Posted by hilbert90

That is a harmful side effect of that belief. Gay marriage is a no brainer. Those are real, loving families that get badly hurt by this policy.

How many loving families are there where one person demands the right to have sex with dozens of people outside the relationship, without being condemned for it? You should talk to Dan Savage, he'll set you straight on the whole "loving families" thing.

Originally Posted by hilbert90

The Catholic church would rather send a child into the system and possibly not ever be adopted than allow a loving gay couple to adopt him/her.

When I asked Savage how many extramarital encounters there have been, he laughed shyly. “Double digits?” I asked. He said he wasn’t sure; later he and Miller counted, and he reported back that the number was nine.


I'd rather send a child to an orphanage than into a home like this one.

Originally Posted by hilbert90

Stem cell research is the most promising medical research for curing many horrible diseases and obsessing over a couple cells severely limits this research.

Yes. But once again, you ignore the Church's reasons for opposing stem cell research.

Originally Posted by hilbert90

You want to talk about crazy or gullible? It's how brainwashed you have to be to call beliefs that cause serious harm in the world as less crazy than a belief that certain people can't join your religion.

Like anyone would want to join Joseph Smith's weird cult. I believe the mass once God sent the Mormon prophet a revelation saying that Mormon men could no longer have an unlimited number of wives.

Originally Posted by badhatharry

Well, there are a lot of different types here. I haven't kept an accurate count. I would say, however, that the conservative atheists here are generally tolerant of religious views, unlike say the Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris crowd. I would call that a realistic view because religion has merit and isn't going away any time soon.

Where's your evidence that Dawkins and Hitchens are 'intolerant' of religious views? They're making a case for atheism, and because atheism is a negation of religion, they have to refute religion and point out to what problems it leads. Harris opposes even religious moderates, and frankly, he's got an argument - but I disagree with him.

Some of the conservative atheists here are nothing but water-carriers for the worst of the irrational fundamentalists around. That's not good either. You shouldn't attack moral people who believe in God, but defending extreme and pernicious elements goes too far.

Originally Posted by badhatharry

It was probably never legal in this country,

LOL, probably? Badhatharry, charming as ever.

Originally Posted by badhatharry

which is one of the reasons the Mormons were persecuted but that doesn't make it wrong which is what you asserted.

It was not what I asserted. You said that polygamy was "not unheard of" - but of course, it was unheard of in the US. Polygamy may not be a social change in 7th century Arabia, but it definitely was in New York and Missouri. In terms of polygamy, perhaps even the pedophile Muhammad was more enlightened than Joseph Smith. The former lecher married fewer women than the latter one, and he limited the number of women his unthinking followers could marry, unlike Smith.

Originally Posted by badhatharry

It was illegal and culturally unacceptable. I don't know why Smith advocated polygamy nor do I care.

Duh, because God told him to. Too bad God changed his mind after 40 years.

Originally Posted by badhatharry

I don't presume that something that is prevalent cannot be at the same time wrong.

Such a view would be consistent with your broader worldview (you're not a relativist, thank God), but not with the statement you made earlier. Why else would you bring up the prevalence of polygamy in an argument about its morality?

Originally Posted by badhatharry

Maybe you can show me where I said that.

Right here: "I'd say (although I'd have to look it up and don't have the time right now) that at one time in the history of mankind it was the most prevalent type of marriage. What is your basis for saying that there's something wrong with it or that it is akin to human sacrifice?"

Originally Posted by badhatharry

And, you still haven't told me why polygamy is wrong. I guess I can assume that the reason that it is wrong is because you say it is. It is your personal opinion and you expect people to agree with you without giving a reason.

It's true, I haven't, but not because I expect you to take my word for it. But we haven't established the ground rules yet, have we?

Originally Posted by badhatharry

You then equate it with human sacrifice and slavery, which is silly.

They are all great evils and relics of barbarism. Also, I was not even directly comparing polygamy to these practices, I was saying that if you're going to use the prevalence of polygamy as an argument for its morality, you'd have to say that slavery and human sacrifice are OK too.

Originally Posted by badhatharry

I can tell you why slavery is wrong. I can tell you why human sacrifice is wrong. But polygamy seems to me to be a form of marriage, if it is engaged in voluntarily, that has no wrong attached to it. However since it is illegal in America it's wise not to engage in it...at least openly.

It's wise not to engage in it because it's immoral. In marriage, you are supposed to give your whole being to your spouse. How is that going to work with two simultaneous marriages? Should you divide your love between two people? I'm not even scratching the surface of all the things that are wrong with polygamy, it'd take a whole topic to go through those.

[hilbert90]

You're so fond of pointing out "philosophical reasons" as if having reasons for a belief makes it less harmful. I pointed out the harm a belief causes and you say there is reason for it. I hate to break it to you but the LDS church also had reasons for its racism. I guess that nullifies your complaint about it, because once there is a reason we no longer have to look at the consequences of that belief.

The point of the last post which you seem to have missed is that not allowing someone to be a full member of a church is on a whole different moral level than the harms I point I out. Are you actually denying that?

I'm not sure why you're equating all gay people with what Dan Savage does. Should I equate all Catholics with the priests that molested children? I don't think Catholics should be allowed children based on this either. Lots of straight married couples have sex with other people. Should straight people be denied marriage? What you're saying isn't thought out at all on these points. You are generalizing whether a whole group of people should be denied a fundamental right based on what a single person from that group does.

Lastly, stop bringing up God changing his mind because Catholics have the Pope. When the Pope makes some change all Catholics go along with it as if God changed his mind as well, so this isn't some point of contrast but rather a great comparison point for the absurdity of Catholic beliefs as well.

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by hilbert90

You're so fond of pointing out "philosophical reasons" as if having reasons for a belief makes it less harmful.

But don't you find it interesting to see how people's minds work? From my experience on this board there are rational reasons for about a thrid of what is put out there. Another third of the time people try valiently to wrap their opinions in a veil of rationality and the last third of the time no attempt at all is made to come up with good reasons for our beliefs. Those are called self evident beliefs and you just can't touch 'em. Apple is big on these.

I think we humans kid ourselves when we claim that we make decisions based on rationality.

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by apple

Where's your evidence that Dawkins and Hitchens are 'intolerant' of religious views?

Well maybe I've misread them but I have found each to say antagonistic and unneccessarily insulting things about religion. I think they stretch the truth when they blame the ills of man on religion. But they have found a way to be controversial and therefore commercially successful. I'm certainly not suggesting that they be silenced.

I have no idea why you feel it neccessary to attack people, period. What good does it do? What does it change? Do you really think that saying stuff on an obscure message board is going to make a whit of difference?

Although I do find it amusing to poke people who are convinced of their own genius.

Originally Posted by badhatharry

Those are called self evident beliefs and you just can't touch 'em. Apple is big on these.

Even if that were true, you're really dissing "self-evident" truths as a Tea Party girl? Hilarious.

[stephanie]

Originally Posted by hilbert90

Your example was that they at some point in the past didn't accept black people as full members. What real harm was that doing?

Hmm. I'm with you on contemporary LDS, but here I think you go too far. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like you are demanding that we treat all aspects of a candidate's religion as off-limits, even something like a current belief that blacks are inferior. I don't see how that's not relevant to public policy issues, to the type of person a candidate is.

Now perhaps the candidate would have explanations that make sense to you. Like the Jimmy Carter example, perhaps he can explain his relationship with the religion in question based on such things as local differences, personal actions that demonstrate that he doesn't share in the offending belief, an engagement in an intra-faith struggle over the issue, an understanding of the church as a big tent that needs members of many different views for God to work through them, and a personal rejection (demonstrated openly) to the offending teaching, so on.

But not only would membership in such a church be a political liability, but questions about what it means for the person's views are fair game.

You can't compare that to the supposed equal craziness of the Nicene Creed or some such. It has to do with a public policy issue in a quite different way.

The more comparable issues would be those relating to homosexuality and the all-male priesthood in various religions that tend to be seen as more mainstream. I don't actually think they are the same, but I can see an argument there that I don't think you can make by focusing on these other sorts of theological matters.

Sure that's not a good thing, but here is an analogy. Take someone from Soviet Russia and ask them whether the ideas of Stalin or Ghandi are crazier. Because you are an insider the outsider's (Ghandi) beliefs will look crazier. How crazy a belief looks to you has no bearing on how harmful those beliefs are in reality.

Yes, I would agree with you that craziness is not actually the issue.

But what in the world? Every belief I listed in that last post causes very real harm to people.

I don't agree with this. I think there's a difference between the mechanism by which the views interrelate to public policy vs. something like a teaching that certain groups of people are inferior that you are ignoring, also. (I feel like I should flesh this out, but it can wait for a later post.)

Yet due to your insider position you are defending those beliefs as less crazy than a belief that didn't really cause harm.

Why do you assume apple is an "insider"?

Telling people not to use condoms causes the spread of STI's.

Okay, maybe I can flesh the point out here.

No, the argument would be slightly different. First, one could claim that there's a public policy negative if the Church (and other allies on this issue) act so as to make condoms unavailable (or less available) for those who don't follow (or likely buy into Catholic teachings). I think this is a fair argument, but there's a distinction between something being Catholic and agreeing with all political efforts in these kinds of areas. It's not really a matter of doctrine.

Second, one could claim that buying into Catholic teachings makes one more likely to behave in an unhealthy manner, as it's too hard to actually follow the teachings (which I don't believe) so one won't, but will be too guilty to use condoms as one should. Psychologically, there may be some truth to this one for some people, but I don't think it's a very strong basis to claim that the Catholic belief itself -- for Catholics -- must be fought by non-Catholics. It doesn't make the internal Catholic view on artificial contraceptives, however dumb you think it is, analogous to an internal view that black people are inferior to white people.

Originally Posted by hilbert90

You're so fond of pointing out "philosophical reasons" as if having reasons for a belief makes it less harmful.

You're the one who keeps bringing up 'harmfulness'. Last time I checked, everyone else was talking about craziness. Speaking of craziness, can you tell me how reasonable it is to believe that Joseph Smith was told by God that polygamy is OK, only to have that be retracted once the Mormon Church got into trouble over the issue?

Originally Posted by hilbert90

I pointed out the harm a belief causes and you say there is reason for it.

Aside from the fact that this sentence is grammatically incorrect, that is not what I said. I said that you can't simply assume that a belief is "crazy" because hilbert90 disagrees with it, you actually need arguments to show that. For that matter, you'd actually need arguments to show that opposing condoms in Africa increases rates of AIDS - because there is research that suggests that the Catholic way of doing things may actually be more effective.

Originally Posted by hilbert90

I hate to break it to you but the LDS church also had reasons for its racism. I guess that nullifies your complaint about it, because once there is a reason we no longer have to look at the consequences of that belief.

The reason was a belief in the inferiority of the black man - not a particularly respectable belief. On the other hand, Catholic opposition to condoms is based on Thomism, which isn't exactly analogous to the ideology of the KKK.

Originally Posted by hilbert90

The point of the last post which you seem to have missed is that not allowing someone to be a full member of a church is on a whole different moral level than the harms I point I out. Are you actually denying that?

Your 'harms' are mostly self-inflicted anyway. You are suggesting that there are hordes of promiscuous folks out there who use condoms, but then hear that the Catholic Church opposes sleeping around and using condoms, and think to themselves: My God, sleeping around and using condoms is against my Catholic faith. I've got to stop... using condoms. I'd suggest a Darwin Award, plus eternal damnation for them.

Also, you continue to disparage concerns about racism and the DEATH PENALTY for interracial marriage to not being able to join Mormonism - like anyone would want to join Smith's vile cult.

Originally Posted by hilbert90

I'm not sure why you're equating all gay people with what Dan Savage does.

Because he's rather prominent, and he isn't condemned by gay rights groups.

Originally Posted by hilbert90

Should I equate all Catholics with the priests that molested children?

So you agree that Savage's ideology is not a particularly appealing one?

Originally Posted by hilbert90

Lots of straight married couples have sex with other people. Should straight people be denied marriage?

Absolutely, whoever commits adultery should not be permitted to remarry.

Originally Posted by hilbert90

Lastly, stop bringing up God changing his mind because Catholics have the Pope. When the Pope makes some change all Catholics go along with it as if God changed his mind as well,

LOL. You obviously don't know a single Catholic, and don't know anything about Catholic doctrine. In any case, can you show me where the pope made a change that was comparable to the Angel Moron(i) Church's remarkable about-face on polygamy and racism?

Originally Posted by badhatharry

Well maybe I've misread them but I have found each to say antagonistic and unneccessarily insulting things about religion.

Perhaps, but they are polemic writers, especially Christopher Hitchens. Anything written by the man is absolutely glorious.

Originally Posted by badhatharry

I think they stretch the truth when they blame the ills of man on religion.

They hardly blame all the ills of man on religion. Only the ones that are actually caused by religion. It's amusing that some people insist on only linking the good things that people do to their religious beliefs. If religion can inspire a person to do good things, why not bad things as well? I think Hitchens and Dawkins are probably a bit on the other extreme, but the sensible ground allows you to see the good and the bad that religion does.

Originally Posted by badhatharry

But they have found a way to be controversial and therefore commercially successful. I'm certainly not suggesting that they be silenced.

I never suggested that you wanted to silence them.

Originally Posted by badhatharry

I have no idea why you feel it neccessary to attack people, period. What good does it do? What does it change? Do you really think that saying stuff on an obscure message board is going to make a whit of difference?

I never knew I was attacking people. I've actually been very nice to the people on this board, left and right.

Originally Posted by badhatharry

Although I do find it amusing to poke people who are convinced of their own genius.

Mostly unsuccessfully, unfortunately.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Originally Posted by apple

They hardly blame all the ills of man on religion. Only the ones that are actually caused by religion. It's amusing that some people insist on only linking the good things that people do to their religious beliefs. If religion can inspire a person to do good things, why not bad things as well? I think Hitchens and Dawkins are probably a bit on the other extreme, but the sensible ground allows you to see the good and the bad that religion does.

They absurdly blame atrocities committed by atheists to religion. It is lazy, and obviously deficient, polemic.