I really don't understand the argument "people have a right to believe whatever they want" in the context of this board.

I'm not sure exactly what criticizing a religion and lamenting family members still being in that religion is anything but acknowledging that people have the right to believe what they wish - even when it leads to heartache.

The problem with Mormonism is that certain beliefs aren't simply silly but benign. If Mormonism just dealt with Jews crossing the ocean and setting up shop in America where Regular Jesus descended on his marshmallow cloud to tell them that people should love each other and not fuck with each others' shit, then that would be fine. Sure, it would be silly - but it wouldn't cause problems.

However, Mormonism has a whole host of beliefs that ARE harmful. Furthermore, these beliefs have resulted into a culture that also can be very harmful as well.

This board exists simply because Mormonism went beyond silly beliefs into the realm of cults where people can be damaged psychologically just for having any contact with the members.

And that's it.

I'm having a hard time trying to finish this post simply because the two ideas of religious freedom and this board are so totally separate. Certain posters may have their individual feelings on whether or not Mormonism should exist, but I have yet to see a poster who comes from a country with the freedom of religion to not understand that religious freedom means that people can choose what they believe.

However, for us who are Americans, the exact same place that gives people the right to believe the stupid shit they believe also give people the right to say that everyone else' shit is fucking ridiculous. Furthermore, my rights stop when someone else' rights begin. And this has been tricky for any Democracy to figure out exactly where those lines are drawn. Religion is included in that.

You can believe what you want in your sweet gooey brain, but the second your beliefs turn into words, you are not free from criticism. And if those beliefs turn into actions, you may very well be not free from more than just criticism.

One of the things this board is supposed to do is be a safe place where people CAN criticize because they may not be able to DO anything else.

Why? Well, because it's pretty obvious that we still have freedom of religion.

So, again, I don't really see what any of this board has to do with freedom of religion because taking a giant verbal shit on a religion is NOT the same as saying that people shouldn't have the freedom of religion.

When dealing with this issue, I always make a point of clarifying an important distinction:

There is a vast difference between respecting someones *right* to believe and respecting the beliefs themselves.

I respect the right to believe. That means I cannot and will not harm anyone or attempt to legally block their rights to believe.

I may not respect their beliefs. That means I might engage in criticism or even mockery. If that mockery crosses a line where someone is being verbally abused, I suppose you could make the case that harm is being done, but in a forum such as this--where anyone is free to ignore the words of a stranger, I don't think genuine abuse is likely to be an issue that actually crosses that line.

"One of the things this board is supposed to do is be a safe place where people CAN criticize because they may not be able to DO anything else."

Precisely correct.

People who think we should discuss the pros as well as the cons of Mormonism, have apologists chime in ad infinitum, allow active, believing members to tell us why Mormonism is great, watch what we say and how we say it for fear of offending the most sensitive soul's sensibilities, need to justify our every thought and action in the name of fair play and any and every other means of engaging in political correctness when it comes to discussing our own experiences, challenges, beliefs, thoughts and emotions pertaining to Mormonism, are seriously misunderstanding the purpose of RfM.

It is supposed to be about not having to justify an honest reaction, for once, but being able to just write as ourselves without second-guessing every word for fear of giving offence or being told off. It is supposed to be about talking to people who understand without you having to explain every single last picky detail of every thing, every time. It is supposed to be about having questions and asking them without being told off for climbing out of the box, or even just peeking over the edge of it. It is supposed to be about not having to qualify every single sentence we write because some things are taken as given (i.e., not _all_ members are all one way or another, of course, but it gets ponderous to have to qualify that, and similar thoughts, every time).

In short, as RJ says, freedom of speech and freedom of religion and other such concepts, and especially PC'ism, aren't enshrined here, nor should they be. It's not that kind of place. To say, for example, that due to the ideal of religious freedom we have to give equal time to discussing the so-called "good" of Mormonism, or worse, that to protect the idea of religious liberty we can't write anything "negative" about Mormonism, is radically wrong and misses the RfM purpose completely.

Calling for us to give equal time to the so-called good things in Mormonism discounts RfMers' personal experiences and observations of the Mormon Church that show the seamy underbelly. If some members, past or present, don't ever see the underbelly, that's their good luck, but they can't say it doesn't exist (although they may so conclude) as the experiences of so many current and past members exposes it regularly.

I agree with the sentiment that is expressed more often here now than I've seen before, that supporting an institution that promotes/allows undesirable things is the same as promoting them yourself; i.e., if your church denounces GLBTQ people and you support your church then you are also in the position of failing to support GLBTQ people and are actively (even if only by proxy) seeking their extinction or at least a curtailment of their human rights.

To acknowledge that your church actively seeks to hurt fellow humans and then to try and mitigate that fact by saying "but they do a lot of good" (i.e., soup kitchens, disaster aid) falls sadly flat. If they pick and choose who they are going to help, according to some standard of "worthiness", that is worse than never doing any "good" at all.

(Am I off topic yet?!)

Basically, just wanted to say yeah, what RJ said!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/18/2011 10:52PM by Nightingale.

For me it crosses the line in several cases. 1. When someone is mocked simply because they believe.Discussing differences is one thing. Being condescending and superior, if not downright obnoxious, is another. That happens occasionally.2. When the person doing the criticizing engages in stereotyping such as Mormons have no boundaries, Catholics all molest kids, all Christians believe in Noah's Ark and on and on. That happens a lot. It may not be popular but I will call people on this kind of thinking.3.When people have no idea what they are talking about in regards to religions other than Mormonism. That happens a lot since many posters have a tendency to see all religion through the lens of Mormonism. Again, I will correct misconceptions when I see them even though it may not be popular.4When people rfuse to see that their experiences in Moronism may not be the same as ours. These people expect to have their views validated and accepted without question but if someone else says they had a more benign experience they are in denial, enabling and my favorite, apologists.

I think it boils down to courtesy. There are radical atheists here and there are true believers and a lot of people in between. We can criticize and discuss and still show a little bit of concern for the feelings of others.A few posters just don't seem to get that.

"Catholics all molest kids"

I have _never_ seen anyone say this and I read the board most days, for many years.

I agree that generalizations can clang a bit, depending on how something is said but as I said above, writing disclaimers in every sentence can get a bit ponderous, repetitious, and obvious.

I rate courtesy highly and I agree with that point - no need to mock or trash a poster. Nobody needs to meet that reaction when they are trying to participate with good will. Some people, sometimes, may deserve a good telling off (trolls, for instance). I used to be sympathetic to everyone but some people just don't deserve it (i.e., anyone who plays games with RfM posters or tries to hurt the board). I especially dislike those who purposely track down the most vulnerable-sounding participants and try and hurt them (for instance, trying to get them to stop posting).

It's hard for many to understand but one harsh or negative response amongst 20 positive ones stands out more than all the rest and can truly damage tender feelings and scare people off. I don't like to see that happening. It's a sad fact that some posters, especially newbies, do get lost in the fast shuffle around here. I think many longer-timers watch out for newbies and try to help as much as they can.

On the other side of the "wars" between believers and non-believers, I think that some believers need to come to understand the difference between mocking the beliefs and attacking the believer. I know some comments can cut deep sometimes - I have felt that pain myself - but I don't take it as a "personal attack" (unless it is - and there is a difference).

It's quite subjective too, which adds to the challenges of understanding each other, caring for each other's concerns, and participating well together. Taking that much time and care in posting may be too much to expect of some participants, especially the newbies who may be wrapped up in their own immediate concerns. True enough that on first arriving at RfM one may be in more personal need and less able to care about others. It's all part of the ebb and flow of the place.

I have seen posters make comment assuming that abuse is the norm among Catholic priests. That is stereotyping and it is wrong, not to mention inaccurate. If you thought I was talking about you, I wasn't.As far as disclaimers, that can get old, but how much harder is it to say "Some Mormons do xxx" and "Mormons do xxx'?One is accurate and the other is stereotyping. The problem can be solved with one word.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/18/2011 11:22PM by bona dea.

No, bd, I didn't think you were talking about me. I have never and would never say that all Catholics abuse kids nor would I say that all priests abuse kids. That would be ridiculous.

It did take me time to accept so many generalizations (such as "Mormons are idiots") but I'm used to it now. Also, I've read others' opinions about it, that in context here it's a given that we're talking "some", not all, and it gets repetitious to modify every statement.

I don't think it's the worst thing we can say or do to make generalizations with the understanding that we're not talking "all".

Hopefully, though, the real issue is that we communicate well and have fewer misunderstandings.

I know you have never said that and am glad you didn't think I was saying that you had.

I would add:

That using hyperbola and generalizations to be critical of people that use hyperbola and generalizations is disingenuous at best.

I think that labeling one 'side' as "radical" the other 'side' as "true" while lecturing everyone on respect is not at all respectful.

...when it takes- or actively advocates taking- people's rights and freedoms away. Or when a leader- like Boydie-poo- advocates violence against people... I do not have the link to where he damn near encourages beating up gays; can someone furnish it?

when they start mobilizing armies of people to tell, encourage, scare, connive, and convince other people to join them by approaching people's space in person and thru the airwaves.....well, that crosses the line.

The "live and let live" mentality is fine as long as I never, ever see or hear the perps.

In the words of Ron...just sayin'

How does the context of this board negate someone's right to believe what they wish?

Even in the real world, outside of this board, people can believe what they wish and are criticized for it.

I think there is tendency here to dog pile on believers. Of course they can still believe IRL, but I suspect many leave the board because of this tendency. Their freedom to believe and post their beliefs here requires a tough hide. I think that is unfortunate as is the proselytizing of a few vocal atheists.

I think it is a delicate question, with regards to the believers. Too many times they themselves are proselytizing their own version of Christianity. Even some of them are equally as nasty in a verbal bout than the atheists who reply.

It does make for some interesting reading though.

Most of the believers here, other than a few trolls, don't do much proselytizing. IRL, it is the opposite, but around here the believers are outnumbered and for the most part, it is the atheists who are doing the proselytizing.If a believer tries, he gets shot down pretty fast. There have been threads where believers were asking if someone could recommend a certain type of church and a number of atheist jumped in with comments about how they should just read Dawkins or Sagan and they would realize they don't need a church because religion is a bunch of nonsense, blah, blah, blah. That certainly meets my definition of proselytizing.The believers were not in anyone's face about their beliefs, were trying to have a conversation and they didn't need to ask atheist's permission.

I think the context remark is trying to say that coming to a place where criticism or religion is to be expected then whining that there is criticism of religion is kina odd.

I guess you couldn't address my questions yourself. :(

Because the idea of negating "freedom of religion" and my choice of the word context were not what I meant whatsoever.

Fair enough, I guess I wasn't being very clear.

Just ask Jesus. All I did was send him my grocery list and whine a lot.

If the question is answered, why does it matter who it was that answered it, other than to try to use innuendo to find fault that is.

What does it matter to you who I decide to talk to?

*sigh*

You also have to right to poke yourself in the eye with a fork. But when you do, you can expect people here to call you stupid. If you have a sacred cow, this is not the place to bring it to graze. And as Eric has said for years, please allow us our small corner of cyber space. For quite a few this is the ONLY place they can get away from and voice their real opinions of LDSInc.

MJ certainly likes to dance all over that line and cross into cyber bullying and cyber stalking.

If Susan I/S doesn't understand that, then someone else should be administrator.

I'm sure this will get deleted, but I have to agree with you on MJ.

And you talk about ME crossing a line bwhahahahahah.

And look who is stalking now! bwhahhahahaha.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/19/2011 12:09AM by MJ.

and voicing it does not mean someone is being a bully or stalking. Confronting and disagreeing with an idea does not mean you are attacking an individual. Does one have to be dogged defending their opinion? Maybe, maybe not. Does repeating yourself make your position stronger? Maybe, maybe not. But PERSONAL attacks are a very different situation.

You are a dumbass.
Vs
That is an illogical conclusion because yaddayadda yadda.

And quite often around here, the one that points the finger is one of the biggest PROBLEMS.

PS - But you need to argue under regular board handles. Hidding behind a puppet to do it IS against the rules here. Got something to say? Cool, but stand up and say it yourself.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/19/2011 12:29AM by Susan I/S.