Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm guessing this is probably more about not wanting bizarre American religions to seep into the British culture than anything else. The British are generally pretty scornful about all these gold plate / talking into hats / reptilian / Thetan, American-styley religions (I'm lumping them all into one ). And let's not forget the chasm of difference in perspective between the USA and the UK with regards to religion, and how the Puritans and suchlike found their home here. These days in the UK the traditional religions are viewed as okay because they are so embedded in the history of the country, but there's scant regard for the new-fangled recent ones which are just seen as a bit of a joke (sorry if that sounds harsh, just being honest).
Even so, this story is bizarre. If by any remote chance Thomas Monson was charged with fraud (never going to happen), you would have to set a precedent and charge the head of every church, of every religion with fraud. It's crazy to even consider that would happen.
If people are daft enough to want to part with their hard earned cash for whatever daft cause they fancy, let them. You can't dictate that kind of thing.
I'm interested in your reactions to this. Are we less than magnanimous when we vanquish some aspect or other of theist hegemony? Are we too full of ourselves?
The article uses as a jump-off point, a British lawsuit against the Mormon church, charging that it teaches false doctrine for financial gain. The president of the church has been subpoenaed to defend his organization. The case probably won't go anywhere according to most legal analysts, not least because it's unlikely for the man to be extradited in the first place.
The writer than goes on to compare us to the Jacobians.
My take is that there is some truth to this. As a practical matter, we need to demonstrate that we are capable of "being big" about our victories, or we're going to be accused (and maybe even rightly, for a change) of religious persecution.
Still, the very fact that we must consider these questions suggests that we're doing well in the marketplace of ideas ...
Without reading the article, this sounds like the typical "mocking", "intolerant", "militant", "hateful" or whatever excuses Christians come up with when they have no rational response to someone questioning their beliefs or cultural privilege. In other words, they don't have a reasonable response so they turn to questioning the character of the person posing a challenge to their emotionally-charged beliefs. Them lashing out in response isn't unexpected, but it also doesn't mean anything other than deeply held beliefs provoke emotional responses when they are questioned.
Reading the article, there's a lot of confusion between letting the non-religious do stuff religious people don't like and the government forcing religious people to change. And a bit of complaining that religious business owners don't get to break the law because they claim to be religious. Letting gay people get married, for example, does nothing to force religious opponents to do anything. So I'm not sure what the complaint is about. If your beliefs are so rigid that you can't bear the idea that someone disagrees with them, you're going to have bigger problems than those caused by a few minor changes to contract law.
I'm interested in your reactions to this. Are we less than magnanimous when we vanquish some aspect or other of theist hegemony? Are we too full of ourselves?
The article uses as a jump-off point, a British lawsuit against the Mormon church, charging that it teaches false doctrine for financial gain. The president of the church has been subpoenaed to defend his organization. The case probably won't go anywhere according to most legal analysts, not least because it's unlikely for the man to be extradited in the first place.
The writer than goes on to compare us to the Jacobians.
My take is that there is some truth to this. As a practical matter, we need to demonstrate that we are capable of "being big" about our victories, or we're going to be accused (and maybe even rightly, for a change) of religious persecution.
Still, the very fact that we must consider these questions suggests that we're doing well in the marketplace of ideas ...
Agreed. If we are feeling 'cocky', there is perhaps a reason. The evidence is falling our way in heaps and there is evidence that the message is getting over.
And cockiness, arrogance, superiority may jarr or grate, but the main thing is whether what is being said is true, not the tone of voice we use when we say it.
At the same time, I think we could definitely cultivate a less abrasive manner when we take a Literalist's argument, wad it into a ball and shove it down his gullet. Atheist press is so bad, that being nice and more tolerant that theists, in addition to having far better arguments, is not only helpful, but is needful for when, in random factors' good time, the rational few step forward to the mental liberation of the deceived majority.
We look to the day. (Searches for clenched -fist Icon) has to settle for
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 02-08-2014 at 06:14 AM..
And cockiness, arrogance, superiority may jarr or grate, but the main thing is whether what is being said is true, not the tone of voice we use when we say it.
Well a little humbleness won't hurt when you give ripostes..;-)...As for giving truth,(**** cough! cough! cough holding hands on throat****)I got a bone in the throat on that one!! ..;-).........And you know if someone was taking a picture this can all look like a cage filled with barking dogs. Hard to get through the noise sometimes. But that's me over here on the opposite end.
Well a little humbleness won't hurt when you give ripostes..;-)...As for giving truth,(**** cough! cough! cough holding hands on throat****)I got a bone in the throat on that one!! ..;-).........And you know if someone was taking a picture this can all look like a cage filled with barking dogs. Hard to get through the noise sometimes. But that's me over here on the opposite end.
It is only too easy to note the barking and ignore the message - especially if the message is one that isn't exactly what the listener wants to hear.
Well a little humbleness won't hurt when you give ripostes..;-)...As for giving truth,(**** cough! cough! cough holding hands on throat****)I got a bone in the throat on that one!! ..;-).........And you know if someone was taking a picture this can all look like a cage filled with barking dogs. Hard to get through the noise sometimes. But that's me over here on the opposite end.
The "believers" have held sway for 2,000 years. To hell with them if they don't like "cockiness" after Crusades, witch-burnings, confessional wars, and so on (eg laws protecting marital rape and punishing non-heterosexuals).
I'm interested in your reactions to this. Are we less than magnanimous when we vanquish some aspect or other of theist hegemony? Are we too full of ourselves?
The article uses as a jump-off point, a British lawsuit against the Mormon church, charging that it teaches false doctrine for financial gain. The president of the church has been subpoenaed to defend his organization. The case probably won't go anywhere according to most legal analysts, not least because it's unlikely for the man to be extradited in the first place.
The writer than goes on to compare us to the Jacobians.
My take is that there is some truth to this. As a practical matter, we need to demonstrate that we are capable of "being big" about our victories, or we're going to be accused (and maybe even rightly, for a change) of religious persecution.
Still, the very fact that we must consider these questions suggests that we're doing well in the marketplace of ideas ...
The Scopes Monkey Trial set the precedent for this kind of lawsuit. Just like with Scopes, the suit against the Mormon Church is most likely a way to obtain a public forum against screwball religious views. After all, Scopes was less about prosecuting a teacher for teaching evolution in a classroom than it was having an all-out legal brawl over the religious beliefs.
I think these types of lawsuits are attempting to follow in the footsteps of cases like Scopes and, more recently, Dover.
However, I think it is the author of this article who is overreaching.
For one thing, unless the author knows something we don't, nothing in this article suggests that the person initiating the suit is secular, liberal, or atheist. All it says is that he's a disgruntled ex-Mormon. Being an ex-Mormon doesn't automatically make him a proponent for our side. He could have simply jumped faiths - which is actually the more likely scenario. Without the author specifically labeling the plaintiff as a secularist or a liberal (preferably both), it sounds as if the author is making "one giant leap for Mankind" when he attempts to pin this suit on secularism and liberalism.
In the same vein, I think we're all familiar with how often atheists get blamed for anti-Christian lawsuits even when casual research would show that it was another religious group that started the fight.
For another thing, there is far less reason in Britain for secularists, liberals, and atheists to go full-bore into a confrontation. In that nation, there are far fewer fundamentalists, science-deniers, young earth creationists, and theocratic fascists than there are here in the States. Thus our side has far less justification for attacking religion. I think people who haven't been out of the U.S. aren't aware of just how much more religion is prevelent in the U.S. than it is in other nations.
So are secularists, liberals, and atheists being too cocky? In the U.K. I would say yes ... but not here in the States.
In America, we HAVE to be cocky because we are going against the grain; it is the proverbial "uphill battle." We are at an immense disadvantage in just about every way be it organization, cohesion, financial support, political clout - you name it. The only thing we have going for us is reason. Pure and simple. Considering the handicaps we face, I think we have to be somewhat more forceful than we would be ordinarily.
Without that drive to keep religion in check, religious leaders and politicians have no qualms about ignoring the Constitution and violating civil rights to spread their religion.
For another thing, there is far less reason in Britain for secularists, liberals, and atheists to go full-bore into a confrontation. In that nation, there are far fewer fundamentalists, science-deniers, young earth creationists, and theocratic fascists than there are here in the States. Thus our side has far less justification for attacking religion. I think people who haven't been out of the U.S. aren't aware of just how much more religion is prevelent in the U.S. than it is in other nations.
Shirina, In what ways is it more prevalent.... more places of worship, more tv exposure, more influential in public matters, other ways? Also, which countries have you been to where it is less prevalent and which ones were it has a strong influence? As you can see I'm interested in this aspect of your post. Also, I haven't done much traveling lately so I only know what I read and see on tv.
I'm interested in your reactions to this. Are we less than magnanimous when we vanquish some aspect or other of theist hegemony? Are we too full of ourselves?
The article uses as a jump-off point, a British lawsuit against the Mormon church, charging that it teaches false doctrine for financial gain. The president of the church has been subpoenaed to defend his organization. The case probably won't go anywhere according to most legal analysts, not least because it's unlikely for the man to be extradited in the first place.
The writer than goes on to compare us to the Jacobians.
My take is that there is some truth to this. As a practical matter, we need to demonstrate that we are capable of "being big" about our victories, or we're going to be accused (and maybe even rightly, for a change) of religious persecution.
Still, the very fact that we must consider these questions suggests that we're doing well in the marketplace of ideas ...
I saw many flaws in this opinion piece. He compares a lawsuit to "ransacked and desecrated churches" and priests being murdered on sight. This is quite a leap and I don't see the connection.
He also discusses same sex marriage laws in the US making it impossible to be a traditionalist Christian. This is nothing new, equal rights for blacks makes it impossible to be a traditionalist Mormon, murder laws make it impossible to be a traditionalist Muslim as an honor killing can get you 20 to life.
Is this religious persecution? I don't think so, these revolve around how society treats each other, any religious impact is an unintended side-effect of protecting everyone's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If a religion gets in the way of that sentiment, it will play second fiddle.
Quote:
when liberals use the government's coercive powers to force believers to change their views or act against their most deeply held spiritual convictions, liberals (paradoxically) commit an act of illiberalism.
The examples provided, like gay marriage, doesn't force anyone to change their views or personal actions. It does use government's powers to ensure you don't inhibit the views or actions of others, but isn't that a major roll of government?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
). And let's not forget the chasm of difference in perspective between the USA and the UK with regards to religion, and how the Puritans and suchlike found their home here. These days in the UK the traditional religions are viewed as okay because they are so embedded in the history of the country, but there's scant regard for the new-fangled recent ones which are just seen as a bit of a joke (sorry if that sounds harsh, just being honest).
