Because we live in a society where we encourage people who want to be taken seriously to respect other people’s feelings. If the Mormon Church decides that they don’t want to take other people’s feelings seriously they should not expect the same thing in response.
I don’t think it’s worse to do this to Jews than it is to do it to anybody else, although with regard to Jews it does have some very ugly historical echoes. I also think the explanations of the practice make it less despicable and more similar to praying for someone than it first seemed, but it is still rather obnoxious.
Yes, I’ve seen and responded to that argument. I don’t see much resemblance at all, much less an “uncanny” one. The historical events you’re talking about involved the use of force. This involves none–neither actual force, nor even imaginary posthumous force.
As I said before, I can understand that aspect of it, in that I know it is hard for people to not think of history as relevant to certain contemporary events even when the contemporary events have literally no connection to the history. I recognize that. But I don’t thereby think it’s a sensible attitude to have. It’s an easy one to fall into, but it’s no less mistaken.
I never said the LDS church should be treated with respect. Heck, they compounded the problem by breaking their word.
Our society also values tolerance of other’s beliefs. If the Simon Wiesenthal Center cannot tolerate other’s beliefs, they should not expect the same in return.
You can’t redefine tolerance.
Your argument is equivalent to people who complain that their religious freedom is being violated when they aren’t allowed to discriminate against gays. A small subset of Mormons are violating their written promises and not tolerating Jews’ religious views and desire to be excluded from an offensive practice with a millennium-long association with truly distasteful events. Jews are not obligated to say that’s okay, and your rhetorical chicanery of redefining “tolerance” doesn’t provide the alchemical reaction necessary to switch the definition.
“Tolerance” does not mean smiling and nodding at everyone’s behavior toward you no matter how offensive, patronizing, or obnoxious it may be. I would say it involves acknowledging that people have a right to their beliefs and a right to practice them while (in cases like this) asserting the right to call bullshit on them. I think in recent years people have grown more willing to come out and say that this kind of behavior - calling someone else’s religion false or incomplete and so on - is really dickish and better kept to oneself.
The Aryan nations truly believes that god wants us to be separated by the races, the WBC thinks that god hates fags and america too.
They think they are doing gods work also.
Why should those of us who take offence to that be silent, they have a right to their beliefs but they do not have a right to respect.
But once again, the larger issue is that the church keeps making promises and not following through.
If the church wants to be thought as a quirky cult, then the course they are following is fine, if they want to be considered a mainline religion they are taking a few steps back.
Yes, and I am not offended by either of these facts, nor should anyone else be.
Things they may do about these beliefs, however, should rightly bother people. Disturbing funerals should rightly bother people. It makes sense to forbid it. It’s an act done to another person. Making plans to separate black and white people from each other–it makes sense to forbid that. It’s an act done to another person.
Writing a name down on a slip of paper, and dunking yourself in water on their behalf… you haven’t done anything to them. It makes no sense to be offended by this. It certainly would make no sense to forbid it. (If the person promised not to do it again, of course, that’d be a different story.)
And I have not argued that LDS belief or any other belief should be respected. I have argued it makes no sense to be offended by it, and would not make sense to want to forbid the practice.
You summed up the evil of much of religion very nicely here. Forced baptisms were not done out of hatred, they were done to save the souls of Jews who for some reason (no doubt Satanic) just wouldn’t see the light. They no doubt thought the Jews would thank them when they got into heaven.
They basically think that they are stalking the unconverted in the waiting room of heaven, or wherever the hell this is supposed to be.
Say someone feels that gay people are at risk of losing their souls. How would it be if he announced very loudly that he was praying for gay people, say a specific guy, to go straight, and left fliers for conversion seminars at the door. All done out of good will and love, right?
Alas, the dead people in this case can’t punch these morons right in the snoot.
Could well be, and it would make no sense to me to be offended by it. However, to the extent that he could reasonably be thought to be interfering with others’ peace of mind, I’d advocate forbidding him from doing these things.
Again, the mormons in their temples are literally not doing anything to anyone. Every example people have come up with (with one exception–the swastika one) involve actually doing something to a person.
Tolerance ends when harm begins–discrimination is harm and should not be tolerated. Not relevant to posthumous baptisms.
Yes, Mormons are being offensive to Jews for posthumous baptisms and are being jerks for not keeping their promises not to do that. But there is no actual harm being done. No one is obligated to say that’s okay, and no one is obligated to complain about it.
It make it clear, I don’t find posthumous baptisms offensive. I really don’t care what rituals Mormons perform in their own places of worship. I do think they are jerks for not keeping their promises. I understand other groups find it offensive, but I don’t care, the world is full of offensive people and those offended by them. But we still have to tolerate them.
Jew: We don’t want you to do this, either to us or to our ancestors.
Mormon: Hah, hah, we know better than you do, so we don’t give a crap about what you want.
Get it now?
No the publish the names on an online database that shows the individual as baptized and confirmed as any Mormon who had died would appear, except that the baptism and endowment dates are after their death date.
This is what offends lots of people, if they were baptized and not published no one would know.
I posted this earlier in the thread.
CARL SAGAN Pedigree
Male
Event(s):
Birth: 1934 Ithaca, , , New York
Christening:
Death: 20 DEC 1996
Burial:
LDS Ordinances:
Baptism: 13 MAR 1998 PROVO
Endowment: 10 JUL 1998 PROVO
I should write something about Joseph Smith and Brigham Young and the whole crew rotting in hell and undergoing excruciating tortures. I can plaster this all over the place, and, after all, no one would be hurt since we are only going to include dead people.
Think no one in the church would object? Think they’d be fine with me saying that it couldn’t possibly be offensive? Remember, I’m doing even less than the example here - I’m not claiming to say prayers that would affect the dead people, I’m just telling a story.
Clearly someone in the church was bragging about this, otherwise we’d never know.
No, it doesn’t. We are obliged to allow certain behaviors which we find objectionable. Nazis can march down main street, eco-nuts can have rallies against nuclear plants, anti-abortion folks can post gory photos on college campuses.
We are not required to tolerate all behaviors however. “Tolerance” does not mean that we have to be okay with someone walking up to us and saying “Hey, fuck your mother.”
Are you black, gay or both?
I ask because if you’re not part of the group being targeted or the person being targeted then it’s rather easy to not be offended.
Moreover it strikes me as extremely arrogant and extremely stupid to say that blacks or gays shouldn’t be offended by others claiming they are subhuman or deserve to be murdered unless you are one and even then it’s still pretty dumb.
If Michael says that he thinks Bob has an exceptionally small penis, is incapable of having sex except with whores and the only way they’ll agree to have sex with him is if he pays double the regular rates because he’s so ugly and smells so badly then it’s certainly understandable why I wouldn’t be offended, but it’s rather understandable that Bob would, including if the accusations were demonstrably false.
I understand the Mormons and the Jews more than the arguments in this thread.
Two different wackaloon religions with their own belief structures are in conflict with each other, and people in both churches are upset. And there are a bunch of other wackallon reigions upset with this particular Mormon practice as well. And it’s all over dead people who neither know nor care anything about what’s still happening in their name on earth.
This is completely understandable if you accept the all the parties involved are deluded fruitcakes where religion is concerned. Think of it as inmates at an asylum fighting over which is the best color in the rainbow.
And you folks are searching for rationality and reason in this?
No, because the Mormons aren’t doing anything to anyone, not to any Jews, and not to any ancestors.
But they are breaking a promise, right?
Of course I think they would. And of course I think they’d be wrong to do so. I am not sure why you would not know either of these things, based on what I’ve said in the thread.