Recovery Board  : RfM
Recovery from Mormonism (RfM) discussion forum. 
Go to Topic: PreviousNext
Go to: Forum ListMessage ListNew TopicSearchLog In
Posted by: ICEMAN ( )
Date: September 09, 2019 12:49AM

This is a re-start of a previous thread about the Gaddy v. COP (Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ) class action lawsuiy...see these two articles for details:

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: elderolddog ( )
Date: September 09, 2019 12:57AM

Who gets to define "reasonable"?

Would you want to discuss this if the question were:

Should Religious Freedom have limits?

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Dave the Atheist ( )
Date: September 09, 2019 01:11AM

Should Atheist freedom have limits ?

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: elderolddog ( )
Date: September 09, 2019 01:49AM

Should limits have limits!

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Boomerang ( )
Date: September 09, 2019 06:17AM

No one here has defined what "reasonable" means, or reached a point of agreement with others over that definition. Until you do that this question is meaningless.

However, those countries which restrict religious freedom greatly are almost always dictatorships.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: alsd ( )
Date: September 09, 2019 07:01AM

Of course there should be reasonable limits. Yes, "reasonable" can be hard to define. But IMHO reasonable would include limits on anything that would harm or affect people other than yourself. I also think religious based abuse or neglect should not be tolerated. For example no religious based genital mutilation, no denying children medical care in favor of faith based healing, etc. I also do not think there should be official exemptions for religions. I do not think religions should get tax exempt status. I don't think certain foods should be banned because someone might be offended by them (for example some schools in Denmark have banned pork products because it offends the Muslim students and they feel left out if there is a class party that serves a traditional Danish pork dish like Frikadeller). I don't think there should be special exemptions from other laws just because the law contradicts your religious teachings. I am fine if someone wants to believe in a fairy tale, and wants to go and pray to some mythical being, or read scriptures from a book of superstitions. I am not fine if that fairy tale is your justification for abuse, neglect, discrimination, or violence against others. Basically "reasonable" would mean your religious freedom ends at your own body.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/09/2019 07:06AM by alsd.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: babyloncansuckit ( )
Date: September 09, 2019 07:18AM

It already has limits: the law. If you stone an adulterer, you go to jail.

I think the case tests George Castanza’s “It’s not a lie if you believe it” theory. How far does the church’s plausible deniability go? What amount of stupidity is reasonable? Choosing to believe nothing but lies in the face of overwhelming evidence is malfeasance, er I mean, religious freedom. An institution on the public’s dime is subject to a higher standard. They don’t get to have it both ways. Either protect and serve the community or pay taxes.

But Gaddy is going after things the church admits to knowing. TSCC made public statements about its history but told investigators a completely different story because they didn’t like the way the truth would look.

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/09/2019 07:33AM by babyloncansuckit.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: azsteve ( )
Date: September 09, 2019 07:44AM

Mormonism skirts reasonable limits. Whether they should be regulated by statute or by lawsuits, they need to be regulated.

An example is polygamy. Officially, the mormon church currently believes that polygamy is an acceptable practice, if not for the laws that prohibit it. That is why a mormon man can marry several women in succession in the temple and be married eternally to all of them after death, as long as each marriage is preceded by the the death of the previous wife. The women have no similar privilege.

So, they say that they have a belief that is contrary to the law, while agreeing to abide by the law. Let's put this in context. Let's say that you had a neighbor that belonged to a church that you knew little about. One day,you find out that your neighbor's religion believes in performing human sacrifices, but that they've agreed not to do it because of the legal prohibition against killing people. Other than that, your neighbor seems to be a nice person. Wouldn't you tend to distance yourself from this neighbor and not fully trust him? Let's say that this neighbor tried to convert you to his church without telling you about that belief, later admitting that you weren't ready to have that information. Should he and his church be limited, restrained by something, anything? So let's say that you joined his church, later finding out about this belief in doing human sacrifices and that after years, your mind had been poisoned by bizarre beliefs that you never would have accepted up-front. Should this person have any recourse?

The Gaddy lawsuit doesn't even address these kinds of religious belief issues. All she is suing for are the verifiable lies about factual information that was mis-represented to her and which lies harmed her. Most of the damage can't be sued for because it is about bad religious beliefs, which are protected under the religious freedom laws. You've got to know that the religion is bad when both the religion and the teachings about its supporting historical beginnings are all lies. It's not only not the only true church, it's a cauldron of lies and deceptions that are optimized to exploit people. God and Jesus are afterthoughts and excuses for the fraud, nothing more.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/09/2019 07:53AM by azsteve.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: mikemitchell ( )
Date: September 09, 2019 08:33AM

The Mormon church is smart, we're dumb, they're big, we're little, they're right, we're wrong and there's nothing we can do about it.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/09/2019 08:34AM by mikemitchell.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Done & Done ( )
Date: September 09, 2019 10:25AM

A reasonable person knows that defining reasonable is shooting at a moving target. If you look up the definition of "reasonable" you will find the words sensible, fair, of sound judgement, and appropriate. Each word as nebulous as the next. Each word begging for your own personal interpretation to bolster your desired actions.

Here is mine. A reasonable action is one that stops short of harming someone else or infringing on their human rights. "First do no harm," is a reasonable mode of operation.

"Unreasonable" is the very basis of religion which wishes to control victimless actions of others in order to force their own "commandments."

Since so many feel that their religious lack of reason should be given a pass, luckily we have a legal system that skips reason and goes straight to "constitutional" and "lawful instead." Well, sometimes, anyway.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: thedesertrat1 ( )
Date: September 10, 2019 06:15PM

It is my opinion that you can do anything and I mean anything that you want to --- SO LONG AS--- You do not forcibly interfere with the rights of another human being nor attept to do so!!!

Options: ReplyQuote
Go to Topic: PreviousNext
Go to: Forum ListMessage ListNew TopicSearchLog In

Screen Name: 
Your Email (optional): 
Spam prevention:
Please, enter the code that you see below in the input field. This is for blocking bots that try to post this form automatically.
 **     **  **    **  **    **  **    **  **     ** 
 **     **   **  **    **  **   **   **   **     ** 
 **     **    ****      ****    **  **    **     ** 
 *********     **        **     *****     **     ** 
 **     **     **        **     **  **    **     ** 
 **     **     **        **     **   **   **     ** 
 **     **     **        **     **    **   *******