How long should a faith carry the weight of their history?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Xavierlives
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I picked it as a courtesy to them. If this was an LDS forum, I would put Christian to distinguish myself as a non-Mormon.
…and the fact that doing so is an incredible insult to them, as well as a giant red flag declaring your complete opposition…probably rude opposition…to any position a Mormon might take hasn’t occurred to you? Remember, Mormons know that they are Christians.

For you to call yourself a Christian “to distinguish [yourself] as a non-Mormon”

Great googly moogly, man, you may as well come to a peace conference waving a bloody sword and asking 'who’s next?"

Of course, if your intention is to invite arguments, distrust and disdain, that’ll do it.

In fact, that’s probably why you don’t call yourself “Christian” in here; you know exactly how much of an insult it would be percieved as, and since you seem to believe that Catholics ARE Christian, you don’t want to insult them. You are more careful than that.

However, introducing yourself as “Protestant” in LDS debate forums would have the same result as it does in here; it differentiates you from Catholicism, but doesn’t offer that giant red matador’s flag. We don’t think we are Protestants, either, y’know.
 
Which is my point. Someone says, “everybody knows 1+1 is 2.” If she doesn’t like it, she will claim an ad populum fallacy. I see it with such regularity, I question if there has been any real training.
Well, claiming that 1+1=2 BECAUSE everybody knows it IS an ad populum fallacy.

Argumentum ad Logicam is also a fallacy.

Now while that may seem to illustrate YOUR point, it still means that the thing 'everybody knows" has to be proven some other way to the one who, evidently, does NOT ‘know’ it.

Because from what I can see, most of the things that are ‘true’ because ‘everybody knows’ that they are tend to fall in the catagory of 1+1 = 3.
 
An institution will always bear that weight. What springs from it is it’s ‘fruit’.

If it denies it’s own past, it is breaking with itself and becoming something new. It cannot refer to it’s own antiquity and simultaneously try to forget what happened between then and now.

If nothing else this should humble us a bit.
I think this is where someone should quote Santayana…
 
Which is my point. Someone says, “everybody knows 1+1 is 2.” If she doesn’t like it, she will claim an ad populum fallacy. I see it with such regularity, I question if there has been any real training.
Great point, since something that’s obvious, or that “speaks for itself” (Res Ispa Loquitor) would not fall under the ad populum fallacy (although many seem to think it does). The sky isn’t blue on a clear day because most people believe it’s blue on a clear day; on a clear day the sky is objectively blue (and it’s “blueness” speaks for itself, all you have to do is look upward) 🙂
 
I wonder why we debate things like religion, or lack thereof? I wonder if anyone ever gave this question serious thought. The Mormons say they’re right, the Catholics say they’re right, and I claim everything religion is premised on is untrue. While it’s probably true that only one of us can be right, it’s also obvious that people entrenched in their views will not likely be persuaded by anyone to abandon them (it does happen, just not very often). My own views are becoming exceedingly more moderate, as I mature in them (I’ve come to the view that religion does perhaps benefit some if not many people, and the western framework of religiosity provides a sufficient balance between secular and religious interests).

But why do we bicker about it (maybe I should start a new thread on this, but it just crossed my mind so I thought I’d express it)? Surely American society is sufficiently saturated with religion that few are ignorant of the panoply of choices available to them. Moreover, I never see any conclusion to these discussions (I’ve never debated a Christian apologist to have them end by saying “I win” – even though I always believe I did – nor have I ever seen a Catholic say “hey buddy, you’re right, Mormonism sounds like the way to go”) 🤷

Maybe its an innate feature of our psychology?
I do it…
Because I want to correct erronious claims about what our beliefs actually are.
Because it sharpens and clarifies my OWN beliefs.
Because it’s fun.

The above reasons are not in order, which changes according to the conversation…at least for me.
 
Great point, since something that’s obvious, or that “speaks for itself” (Res Ispa Loquitor) would not fall under the ad populum fallacy (although many seem to think it does). The sky isn’t blue on a clear day because most people believe it’s blue on a clear day; on a clear day the sky is objectively blue (and it’s “blueness” speaks for itself, all you have to do is look upward) 🙂
Ah, but most of the arguments that he is refering to in HERE do not speak for themselves, no matter what he might think. Certainly none of the arguments that I have objected to fit into that catagory. 😉
 
I do it…
Because I want to correct erronious claims about what our beliefs actually are.
Because it sharpens and clarifies my OWN beliefs.
Because it’s fun.

The above reasons are not in order, which changes according to the conversation…at least for me.
For me personally, I was (embarrassingly … not long ago at all; and maybe still a little bit) hostile toward religion, after coming arriving at my currently held position. It was almost a sport (and while I may have claimed I did for some altruistic reason, I don’t think I did). I think I like the sport of debate, no matter how high the heat gets turned up. But I also like conclusion, in other words I like to win, and with these arguments there’s NEVER conclusion (in fact participants rarely even concede minor points, let alone reverse position).

In other words it’s virtually always an argument that’s not amenable to conclusion.
 
Ah, but most of the arguments that he is refering to in HERE do not speak for themselves, no matter what he might think. Certainly none of the arguments that I have objected to fit into that catagory. 😉
For example (just curious)?

I see you’re LDS, so are you referring at all to Joseph Smith & the veracity of his claims?
 
For me personally, I was (embarrassingly … not long ago at all; and maybe still a little bit) hostile toward religion, after coming arriving at my currently held position. It was almost a sport (and while I may have claimed I did for some altruistic reason, I don’t think I did). I think I like the sport of debate, no matter how high the heat gets turned up. But I also like conclusion, in other words I like to win, and with these arguments there’s NEVER conclusion (in fact participants rarely even concede minor points, let alone reverse position).

In other words it’s virtually always an argument that’s not amenable to conclusion.
Of course not. Religion isn’t about logic or reason, primarily. Logic and reason (or at least the way many people use it) restricts itself to the evidence that can be measured by the five senses, and can be proven, or transfered. Religion/faith is something that is very subjective; it is no less real, or ‘True,’ but is very personal and individual. Perhaps someday that ‘sense’ that is used when deciding religious truth can be quantified and measured, but that day is not this day.

Logic and reason come in AFTER one’s faith in a primary assumption is pretty much cast in stone, and someone whose faith is in one primary assumption isn’t ever going to win an argument with someone who is working from a different one. Everybody is begging questions.

However, that doesn’t mean that we cannot, by debate and discourse, make each other THINK.
 
For example (just curious)?

I see you’re LDS, so are you referring at all to Joseph Smith & the veracity of his claims?
Uhm…since I have never tried to convince anyone here that Joseph Smith’s claims were actually TRUE…no.

I am referring to claims like 'everybody knows that Mormons aren’t Christian," or “everybody knows that JS was a fraud.” or “Everybody knows that one has to be a Trinitarian in order to be Christian,” or “Everybody knows that Catholicism is the Only True Church…”

Obviously everybody doesn’t know those things. I don’t…and I’m part of 'everybody." 😉

Please note; of the three reasons I listed for debate, “trying to change the mind of the other guy about the truth of my beliefs” wasn’t listed. Religious faith doesn’t work like that.

The most I can do is try to get others to understand what our beliefs really are, rather than some strawman construct they have in their heads. What they do with that is up to them.
 
Didn’t help the Mormons in the mid 1800’s, did it? Didn’t help Smoot take his legally elected seat in Congress…and didn’t keep Texas from invading that compound and destroying lives and traumatizing children, either. It didn’t stop Boggs from issuing that Extermination Order (not rescinded until 1976) that made Mormons legal prey in Missouri…
I’m not sure which Texas compound you are referencing. Branch Davidians or FLDS. I am assuming it is the FLDS because the FedGov did BD. Texas didn’t “invade” anything. This compound was within the borders. Texas has a legal obligation to protect the children within that border. Sure, everything was found to be fine, but Texas, on its own power did not enter the compound. Someone, made a complaint and the State was required to answer.

As for the rest, here. Hey, I am sorry. But as I am not responsible for Slavery, just as I am not responsible for the shooting of JS or the EO of Mormons.

I may not believe your faith but every fiber in my body would be utilized to defend your right to practice it. An infringement on your faith is an infringement on all faith.
SHOULD have, but didn’t.

Why didn’t it? Because Christians had this attitude that Mormons were ‘other…’ and the protections of the Constitution did not apply to them.

Right. Tell that to the families who still haven’t moved back to their homes in Texas…and who, even though several appealate courts have ruled in their favor, have been told that they can’t leave the state without violating the law.

Give me a break.
Again, this is not a Constitutional argument.
I didn’t accuse you personally of doing this, as is evidenced clearly by 'you guys, in the history of your own churches…" or are you truly going to deny the historical proof of this absolute fact? There are a very few Christian denominations who have NOT been guilty of this, but most have. Catholics have. Most Protestants have…and by that, I mean that they have made it official policy to do so.
Again, let me go on the record with you and everyone who cares to read this. While I wholeheartedly disagree with your faith, I believe you have the right to worship in whatever manner you like (so long as you are not harming small children or animals–that was a joke :D).
No, actually, they don’t. Certainly they don’t the blackbirds. 😉

However, you are stretching that analogy into very uncomfortable areas…for you. Please notice; Mormons aren’t out killing people because we don’t like their religion. We leave that motive to others.

yep. Birds. Cowbirds are not blackbirds. Blackbirds are not cowbirds…but they are both birds, and you, my friend, need to do a little more natural history research. Cowbird and blackbird chicks do very well together in a nest.

In fact, in a blackbird nest, if it is a fight between who gets pushed out, it’s ALWAYS the cowbird chick.
You picked blackbirds. I was working within your construct for continuity. Cowbirds in my neck of the kill the chicks of black cap vireos.
Mormons are not Catholics. Catholics are not Protestants. Protestants are not Mormons or Catholics. But all three are Christian, because all three put Christ at the center of their belief system.

It does not make them all right. It does not make them all saved. It does not make them all perfect, or superior to all mankind, or more or less ‘cult,’ or anything else. It simply makes them all a part of that larger classification of belief: “Christian” as opposed to 'Hindu" or “Muslim” or “Budhist”–all of which I am sure have incredibly different opinions about what ‘Truth’ is among themselves.
Well if you would like to go another round about Mormons being Mormons, I’ll be happy to do that.
 
Then I shouldn’t have had to remind you of the many times the Constitution has been violated in the matter of freedom of religion and bigotry, should I?
Do you mean tested?
Nobody likes it when the religious restraints are placed upon them. However, everybody seems to approve when those restraints are placed upon people they disaprove of/disagree with. For instance…remember last year, Texas and a certain compound full of polygamists? THAT has since been ruled to have been a rather pure case of religious bigotry and an abrogation of religious freedom…but that didn’t stop the Texas child protective services from invading the compound and kidnapping the mothers and the children (and transporting them on Baptist buses, no less…in hind sight, THAT was a really stupid PR move…). Even though almost every single case against that group has been either dismissed or overturned, Texas is STILL going after those people.

It happens all the time…and it starts with an attitude–it begins with the idea that someone is ‘other,’ and thus somehow deserves it.
Ahh… it appears I am replying out of order. Here is the compound information. Diana, I am going to offer a bit of advice, if you want less inflamitory comments, offer less snide comments. Texas did not “invade.” For Texas to invade, they would have had to cross the border into Mexico. Texas did not “Kidnap.” Kidnapping is a criminal act. When they take someone into custody, it is with authority. Who cares how they were transported? Oh, you bring in “Baptist” to offer some glimmer of evidence that there was some Baptist plot to steal little Mormon children.
Xavier, with all due respect to your lawyerly self…(OK, perhaps Xavier hasn’t heard this story before, so any of you who have, just tune out for a moment…) that’s bunk. My thirteen year old daughter went into a “Sign of the Fish” Christian bookstore to buy a specific bible–a “Shakespeare” bible. Basically, it’s a KJV that is cross referenced to Shakespeares’ plays, showing how often he used the bible as a quote source. This was the only place we knew of that sold them (no internet at the time) .

The clerk saw that she was wearing a CTR ring (meaning…'choose the right") and knew that she was a Mormon by that. She physically shoved my daughter out of the store, , shouting “Mormons aren’t Christian and don’t belong in a Christian bookstore!”
I have no response other than, I have no idea what CTR is.
I have been stoned. With real rocks…because I am a Mormon and thus didn’t belong in a Christian neighborhood. I have had good Christians tell me that I am damned because I am not a Christian. I keep, folded in the program for my husband’s funeral, the pamphlet that was put under the windshield wipers of everyone at the service telling me that the deceased was in hell and I would soon follow if I didn’t leave the devil Mormon church and become a Christian.
And there are radical muslims blowing things up. They don’t speak for the majority.
There’s that “no true Christian…” thing again.

I’ll have to edit or post a separate response. I have no clue what this is referencing.
dianaiad;6063599:
Optimism is always nice, Xavier…and you are right in many ways. However, one of the reasons you ARE right is that when prejudice rears its ugly head, someone points it out. I’m pointing it out.

My point, precisely…there ARE idiots who molest alligators.
And my point is the law isn’t there to protect the alligators, it is there to protect the idiots. If you lose an an arm to an alligator, they won’t arrest you. They figure you already learned your lesson.

I wish I remembered what all of this was referencing. I was tired when I wrote that post.
 
I’m not sure which Texas compound you are referencing. Branch Davidians or FLDS. I am assuming it is the FLDS because the FedGov did BD. Texas didn’t “invade” anything. This compound was within the borders. Texas has a legal obligation to protect the children within that border. Sure, everything was found to be fine, but Texas, on its own power did not enter the compound. Someone, made a complaint and the State was required to answer.
No, actually, they were not…and that’s one of the things that the courts later found. The ‘complaint’ was KNOWN to be fraudulent before they went in, and no law allows the government to ‘answer’ a complaint known to be fraudulent. They used it as an excuse, and went in with armed men and dogs. That’s not even ‘answering’ according to the standard rules of the child protective services of the state.

…what they did was very much an invasion, and it most certainly was unlawful kidnapping, and after two years, Texas is still attempting to justify it, and being slapped down.
As for the rest, here. Hey, I am sorry. But as I am not responsible for Slavery, just as I am not responsible for the shooting of JS or the EO of Mormons.
No. But you ARE responsible for your own attitude towards others, and it is that attitude that is the first step in justifying such actions. He who one would persecute must first be made ‘other.’ In the history of Christian religion, the first step to justifying this…stuff…is to say 'you aren’t Christian!" That makes everything all right, y’see.

It doesn’t matter who the target is, or who is pulling the metaphorical trigger—the FIRST thing they do is kick 'em out of the Christian nest.
I may not believe your faith but every fiber in my body would be utilized to defend your right to practice it. An infringement on your faith is an infringement on all faith.
While I am very glad to hear that, you are still doing the first thing that is done when people are headed in that direction. It’s rather like catching cancer; the earlier you catch it, the less likely you are to die.
Again, this is not a Constitutional argument.
then why did you make it one?
Again, let me go on the record with you and everyone who cares to read this. While I wholeheartedly disagree with your faith, I believe you have the right to worship in whatever manner you like (so long as you are not harming small children or animals–that was a joke :D).
I believe you. Your problem is that you don’t seem to be able to look past your OWN attitude in this matter and see the bigger reality. As the target of such…stuff…and looking AT the history of Christianity and the way the different denominations deal with each other, the pattern is far to obvious to ignore. This thread began as a discussion about how long a faith should carry the weight of its history…and I think the answer to that is; until they learn from it. When I look around at the attitudes of many Christian denominations towards other Christian denominations, I can’t help but think that few are doing that learning. They are simply repeating the old patterns.

You know that the only thing really different about the people of today and the peoples of the past is that prejudices and bigotry can be communicated faster than ever before.
You picked blackbirds. I was working within your construct for continuity. Cowbirds in my neck of the kill the chicks of black cap vireos.
Well, when you can show me that Mormons go around killing all our Christian neighbors, you could possibly use this as an analogy. Since we don’t, though…

By the way, your analogy breaks down very rapidly when you look at the history of the Mormons. It isn’t, after all, WE who have done the kicking out and killing, generally. I am still rather amazed at Brigham Young’s actions upon reaching the Salt Lake Valley…when he assigned prefered building sites to other faiths right after he assigned the site for the Temple…and BEFORE he assigned sites for our meeting houses and homes.

You guys kicked us out of our homes, our towns and our nation…and we invited you in.

Yep, you need another analogy.
Well if you would like to go another round about Mormons being Mormons, I’ll be happy to do that.
huh? You just lost me.
 
Do you mean tested?
No. I mean violated. a "test,’ it seems to me, would be deliberate act, or a lawsuit, meant to refine or establish how the constitution applies in some instance or other. A violation is a clear abrogation of the tenets of the constitution, where the people involved are very aware that what they are doing goes against what the Constitution says about it. They are simply hoping not to get caught.
Ahh… it appears I am replying out of order. Here is the compound information. Diana, I am going to offer a bit of advice, if you want less inflamitory comments, offer less snide comments. Texas did not “invade.” For Texas to invade, they would have had to cross the border into Mexico. Texas did not “Kidnap.” Kidnapping is a criminal act. When they take someone into custody, it is with authority. Who cares how they were transported? Oh, you bring in “Baptist” to offer some glimmer of evidence that there was some Baptist plot to steal little Mormon children.
Ah, now I KNOW you are a lawyer. Well, speaking informally and in the realm of things like ‘home invasions,’ then an invasion would be an unlawful intrusion into the property of someone else, against their wishes. Usually violent. In that meaning, Texas most certainly invaded the compound, since it WAS unlawful (the courts told them THAT often enough!) and it was done by armed and armored men and tanks, with dogs and all…sounds like an invasion to me, and to pretend that it isn’t because you want to be a lawyer about it is a little…evasive.

As for kidnapping…well, since the invasion was unlawful, then taking the women and children from their homes and transporting them against their will…and holding them (again unlawfully) was also unlawful. So…HOW did you define ‘kidnapping,’ again?

As for the Baptist buses…what can I say? They were Baptist buses. It’s hard to dismiss the pictures of those armed men aiming their rifles at these oddly and modestly dressed women and children as they boarded all those Baptist buses parked in a row…

It wasn’t as though the CPA didn’t have a choice here. They COULD have used local school buses, prison transport buses, rented Greyhound or charter buses…but no. It seems that the Baptists, knowing about this raid before hand and being very much in favor of it, volunteered their buses for the purpose.

As I said, it was not, perhaps, the brightest PR move ever made.

And yes, it DID give a very solid impression that the Baptists were out to get 'em, whether that was true or not. As it happens, it was true. Still is…and the local Baptists are rather proud of that.

look, Xavier, I know you are a lawyer, and I’m just a grad student, but I happened to be taking a class in research and rhetoric at the time this was all happening. The professor, who knew I was Mormon, thought it would be really funny to assign me this case, since he knew that the FLDS was rather an embarrassment to the CoJCoLDS, being polygamist and all that. My thesis for this class was to examine everything that was happening in terms of rhetoric; how each side presented itself, what they did and said,and what purposes were behind everything. He expected me to come down hard on the side of Texas. Shoot, I expected me to come down hard on the side of Texas. That’s not how it went, though. It came as a surprise to both of us that I did not–and nobody with a lick of sense could!

I had access to stuff that most of the media never DID get, and certainly sooner than the media got it. I read every court decision for eight months. I read all the news releases by both sides. I read all the statements by all parties, and believe me, it is not a pretty picture for Texas, the FLDS neighbors or, in fact, anybody involved in this PR disaster.
I have no response other than, I have no idea what CTR is
It means “Choose the Right,” and we give small rings to our Primary children with those initials on it to remind them to always make the right choice. the WWJD people stole the idea from us. 😉 They began as those little pot metal rings that don’t quite go all the way around your finger, so that you can adjust them. It became popular for teenagers and young adults to get nicer rings with those initials on them. I have even seen CTR wedding rings. My daughter wanted one (one of the nicer ones) for her birthday, and I got her one. She still has it.
And there are radical muslims blowing things up. They don’t speak for the majority.
From where I sit, Xavier, it IS the majority. Of course, targets tend not to notice the folks NOT shooting at them, I suppose. The problem, of course, is that I’m not sitting in my house insulated from this stuff. I go out and talk to people, and interact with groups like this, and again, from where I sit…it’s the majority.

Or do you think you are in the minority?
There’s that “no true Christian…” thing again.

I’ll have to edit or post a separate response. I have no clue what this is referencing.
It was to you telling me that I should better ‘fear the non-Christian than the Christian’.
And my point is the law isn’t there to protect the alligators, it is there to protect the idiots. If you lose an an arm to an alligator, they won’t arrest you. They figure you already learned your lesson.

I wish I remembered what all of this was referencing. I was tired when I wrote that post.
Yes, well, the alligators will not be arrested for eating the body parts of the idiots. Laws protecting religion and the right to practice it were put in place to protect the people being persecuted, not the persecutors.

Not that they work all that well, but still…
 
Texas Issues:

To be perfectly honest, I am not really interested in the Texas FLDS part of this conversation. I just don’t see it bringing anthing to the conversation. From a legal standpoint, The State of Texas had the right that it exercised. From a political standpoint, it was a nightmare. But legally, there was a complaint. It wasn’t a state agent who called. Yes, the call was a hoax, but the State had no way to know that. The state had to err on the welfare of children. And they did what they did to try to protect the children.

The Constitution Issue:

This all stemmed from the you saying that when people don’t call you Christian the next step is they are going to burn you at the stake.

I was simply saying that any religious persecution with the weight of the law would require a constituional amendment or something major like a collapse of the USA. I’m not sure why we exploded this into anything more.

Baptist Issues:

Before you mentioned it, I never knew this fact. Who knows why they did what they did. Maybe someone thought it would be funny. Maybe someone thought it would be the easiest way. Maybe the Baptist have a case for the state taking their buses. Maybe whoever did this saw the movie Baptists at Our Barbeque and was upset.
It means “Choose the Right,” and we give small rings to our Primary children with those initials on it to remind them to always make the right choice. the WWJD people stole the idea from us. 😉 They began as those little pot metal rings that don’t quite go all the way around your finger, so that you can adjust them. It became popular for teenagers and young adults to get nicer rings with those initials on them. I have even seen CTR wedding rings. My daughter wanted one (one of the nicer ones) for her birthday, and I got her one. She still has it.
Ok. So you are saying when someone sees this they know it is a Mormon thing? Personally, I don’t look at jewelry, but I’ll keep my eyes open now, so I can talk to more Mormons.
From where I sit, Xavier, it IS the majority. Of course, targets tend not to notice the folks NOT shooting at them, I suppose. The problem, of course, is that I’m not sitting in my house insulated from this stuff. I go out and talk to people, and interact with groups like this, and again, from where I sit…it’s the majority.

Or do you think you are in the minority?
Hmm… In what capacity? I’m sure I can claim some minority status.
It was to you telling me that I should better ‘fear the non-Christian than the Christian’.
I think we all should fear those without religion.
 
Texas Issues:

To be perfectly honest, I am not really interested in the Texas FLDS part of this conversation. I just don’t see it bringing anthing to the conversation. From a legal standpoint, The State of Texas had the right that it exercised.
That IS the point, Xavier. The state of Texas did NOT have that right…as several courts have found since that incident. those same courts have found that not only did Texas not have that right, but that the reason Texas went in was strictly and only because of the religion of the folks in the compound. It has been found, over and over again, that this raid was in direct violation of the FLDS first amendment rights; that the ONLY reason Texas went in the way they did is because they disliked the religion, and that they used a known fraudulent complaint to do so. It is directly to the point, Xavier…and the reason you ‘aren’t interested’ is because it IS directly to the point, and utterly disproves your claim that this stuff can’t happen today.

Because it. uhmn…did.

And it’s still happening. The FLDS families are STILL fighting this through the court systems. They win every single time, but that doesn’t seem to stop Texas from piling on something else.

Ten men are being tried for child molestation charges…charges that they may well be guilty of…but their chances of getting a fair trial in Texas are slim to none. Those that have been sentenced so far have been given the maximum…and most of the evidence used to convict them came from a raid that the Texas appellate and Texas Supreme court have both declared to be unlawful and unconstitutional.

You are a lawyer; doesn’t that mean that the evidence they took is tainted? Can they even USE it in a criminal case? Especially since the women and children they took from the compound have not any of them been charged with anything, and the state has been ordered to reunite them. As well, the state keeps pulling stuff like…telling the women that they can have their kids back as soon as they admit this thing, or that thing, or agree to supervised visition, or to living in a certain area, or to being visited at any time without notice—AFTER the courts told the state to hand the children back, period…without any such stipulations.

The more the state of Texas screws around with this, the worse it gets.

Y’know what burns me the most? SOME day all this is going to crawl its way through the courts, someone is going to wake up and figure out all the illegal **** Texas is pulling, and the convictions of these men are going to be overturned. They will be free–and many, if not most, of them NEED to be in jail.

It’s not the BIGGEST piece of stupidity an American state government has ever pulled, but it comes REAL close—and it’s because the FLDS is disliked and catagorized as ‘other.’ That’s why Texas thinks it can get away with what it has done, because nobody cares what happens to someone who is ‘other.’
 
From a political standpoint, it was a nightmare. But legally, there was a complaint. It wasn’t a state agent who called. Yes, the call was a hoax, but the State had no way to know that. The state had to err on the welfare of children. And they did what they did to try to protect the children.
Except, my friend, the state DID know that. The state knew precisely where the call came from. They knew who made it. They KNEW that it did not come from inside the compound, and they went in anyway.
The Constitution Issue:

This all stemmed from the you saying that when people don’t call you Christian the next step is they are going to burn you at the stake.
Ah, but I didn’t claim that. It’s not the ‘next step.’ However, if ‘burning at the stake’ is contemplated, it is a given that before the fire is lit, the victim has been declared a non-Christian at some point prior to the process. A Christian would NEVER burn another Christian at the stake, y’know. It would be wrong.

So…one gets around it by declaring that the burnee is not a Christian. Then it’s all right.

History has proven that EVERY time one Christian group behaves violently toward another, one of the first things done is to deny the target group their Christianity. Every time. Inevitably. History has also shown that if a group is seen as ‘Christian’ other Christians think a bit before they start going after them for religious reasons. This pattern has been very clear for a couple of thousand years. Catholics do it to the heretics. The Protestants do it to the Catholics. The Protestants do it to each other.
I was simply saying that any religious persecution with the weight of the law would require a constituional amendment or something major like a collapse of the USA. I’m not sure why we exploded this into anything more.
Texas is using the weight of the law…and you are here excusing her actions BECAUSE they had the ‘weight of the law.’ Even though those actions were clearly wrong…and clearly motivated only by religious discrimination.

If they’d had a brain in their heads, they would have gone about this very differently, and the men who are now being sentenced right and left might even have to SERVE them, rather than becoming very, very, very rich when they sue the peawaddin out of the Texas Child protective services.
Baptist Issues:

Before you mentioned it, I never knew this fact. Who knows why they did what they did. Maybe someone thought it would be funny. Maybe someone thought it would be the easiest way. Maybe the Baptist have a case for the state taking their buses. Maybe whoever did this saw the movie Baptists at Our Barbeque and was upset.
Hmmn…is that a movie I’d want to see? 😉

What on earth ‘case’ would the Baptists have for the state taking their buses? They volunteered those buses. True, it saved the state money, but not that much; the state STILL had to commandeer school buses. --and the only expense the state had to incur was gas money.
Ok. So you are saying when someone sees this they know it is a Mormon thing?
Well, the bookstore clerk did. (shrug) I don’t know anybody else who does the CTR thing. Everybody else uses WWJD–probably because they liked the idea of the reminder. It IS a neat idea, actually.

We also like ETTE and RWH…“Endure to the End’ and 'return with honor.”

…but CTR seems to be the most popular one.
Personally, I don’t look at jewelry, but I’ll keep my eyes open now, so I can talk to more Mormons.
Good luck with that. It’s mostly a teenage thing.
Hmm… In what capacity? I’m sure I can claim some minority status.

I think we all should fear those without religion.
Actually, I fear most those who have too much religion and not enough faith.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top