We’re out of holy water … better drink my own piss.
If I ask someone to stop praying for me and they continue to do it, I’m allowed to think they’re a douche for not respecting my wishes, even if they’re not doing it to be mean.
Likewise, if society as a whole (or Jewish organizations in particular) have asked the Mormon Church to please stop baptizing dead people they have no connection with, we’re all allowed to think the Mormon Church is a bunch of douches for continuing to do it, even if they’re not doing it to be mean.
I wasn’t aware they had stopped. Since they try, or did try, to do this to everyone, I don’t see the big deal. They aren’t singling him out because he’s Jewish or because he’s famous. It’s very much like praying for someone.
Your analogy fails. The Mormons are doing this in a misguided attempt to help people. Their intentions matter. I’m not aware of any culture where pissing on people is anything but a sign of disrespect. Even people with pissing fetishes do it because they like being degraded.
And when it’s done without the consent of the baptized person - or even someone who can give informed consent on that person’s behalf?
Welp, I guess we’ve narrowed it down to two options: either it’s a sign of respect for Wiesenthal because they don’t do this kind of thing for just anybody*, or it’s inoffensive because they do it for everybody.
*I think we do need to at least acknowledge the irony of the Mormon church doing celebrity-dead-person-baptisms on both Wiesenthal and Hitler.
Googling, Wiesenthal was apparently a secular Jew, so I don’t think he had any religious beliefs to be respectful of. And Isn’t taking offense to the baptism an expression of belief that Mormonism is the wrong religion? I don’t see how simply saying someones religion is incorrect, is necessarily disrespectful.
No, I don’t really see it as being obnoxious. I don’t think it’ll do anything, but I’d take it in the spirit in which it was being done, which is obviously concern for my spiritual well-being (plus if they’re telling you about it, I don’t see how its super-secret).
Then pretend I said it’s disrespectful of the fact that he’d chosen to live a secular life.
I think we’re disagreeing about the spirit in which it’s being done: you’re saying they’re doing it to help, and I’m saying they’re asserting the superiority of their beliefs. And (getting back to the real practice) doing something on behalf of the dead without being asked, and possibly in contravention of the views the dead person actually held.
That’s where you are wrong. Baptising people with their consent is a sign of respect. Baptising people who cannot consent, but with the consent of their relations (such as infant baptism) is a sign of respect.
Baptising people against their wishes, and against the express wishes of their relations, is and always has been a sign of extreme disrespect, particularly in the unfortunate history of Jewish-Christian relations - in which involuntary baptism played a part.
This has nothing to do with believing in any religion, BTW. I can perfectly understand a Jew who doesn’t care (I don’t care much myself), but equally I can understand someone taking offence - religious or not.
To use another analogy: a spiritualist is in the habit of planting little flags with swastikas on them over Jewish graves. No-one is physically affected by this. He’s told to stop doing it because swastikas are offensive to Jews, because of the whole Nazi thing. He replies “well, in my spiritualist religion, based on ancient native American and Indian sources, the swastika is an ancient holy symbol of good. It has nothing to do with Nazis. I’m doing this as a sign of respect to these great Jews”.
You don’t have to be religious to see why some folks would be unhappy about this. Sure, the spiritualist means well. But after having it carefully explained to him that this makes the living relations of these dead Jews unhappy, continuing to do it strikes me as disrespectful, even if it wasn’t originally intended to be.
Baptizing people who’ve made it crystal clear that they don’t want it and consider it an insult is a sign of disrespect in the same way that telling an atheist who says “Please don’t pray for me, I find it offensive” that hey, you’re praying for them anyway is.
My analogy is spot on.
Jews have made it crystal clear that they do NOT want Mormons retroactively baptizing them. Mormons have agreed on several occasions not to do it.
The first time they did it, yeah, probably just trying to help. Breaking their word and doing it repeatedly after being told (and promising) not to? Disrespectful as hell.
I love that.
Also, does it matter that Mormons say that the baptisms just give spirits the opportunity to convert after death? They theorize that the spirit can still say no thanks, but that it may not be able to say yes if the cerimony hasn’t been done.
If someone were to posthumously baptize my wife, I’d be pissed. She’s an atheist, and so blessing her after she’s dead is basically telling the world that she was wrong… when she’d be completely unable to defend herself.
If, as some have claimed, the Mormons are doing it because they like the person and want him/her to go to heaven… why not posthumously baptize everyone? Doing it to very specific people isn’t “being nice”- it’s sending a message (“We know better than you do.”)
Well, there’s nothing to stop you from thinking it, but if you sneeze, somebody says “God bless you”, and you respond “Fuck that noise - there is no God, and shut up already” there is some ambiguity as to who the douche is.
There isn’t much analogy to the forced baptisms of Jews during the Middle Ages. That was forcing your beliefs on somebody living. Wiesenthal isn’t living. Therefore, he has no rights that have been violated. Baptism on his behalf does not affect him at all.
And come on - baptism and pissing on someone’s grave aren’t even remotely similar.
Regards,
Shodan
To be fair, the church has clearly established rules against it. And they are putting in checks to prevent the members from doing it anyway. In the past they neither had rules or any checking at all.
I would like to see the rules tightened. And the checks are not yet either thorough or sophisticated. But they are improving. The church is making a good faith effort to keep their agreement. The members however can be idiots and aren’t always keeping the church’s agreements.
Where did this come from? What relevance does it have to the conversation?
They are trying to do it for everyone. But the rules require that to baptize someone you have to first prove (to a pretty minimal level of proof) that they actually existed. Then according to the current rules you have to have some degree of relation to them. You aren’t allowed to baptize strangers. Here is the current list of who a member can baptize for:
[ul]
[li]Immediate family members[/li][li]Direct-line ancestors (parents, grandparents, great-grandparents, and so on, and their families).[/li][li]Biological, adoptive, and foster family lines connected to your family.[/li][li]Collateral family lines (uncles, aunts, cousins, and their families).[/li][li]Your own descendants.[/li][li]Possible ancestors, meaning individuals who have a probable family relationship that cannot be verified because the records are inadequate, such as those who have the same last name and resided in the same area as your known ancestors.[/ul][/li]So for a Mormon to baptize your wife, they would have to be relatively close relative. If your wife (or you) don’t have any Mormons in or about cousin level in your family tree, she should be safe.
Depends upon how warm the water is.
I can’t add anything more to this.
Another bad analogy. An individual atheist saying he doesn’t want to be prayed for is different than Jews making it crystal clear they don’t want retroactive baptism, as if Jews are a monolithic group with an official spokesperson. Simon was a secular Jew, maybe he would have appreciated the sentiment, maybe not. If they were singling out Jews, I might agree with you, but they do this to non-Mormons of all flavors.
My understanding is that they do try to do this for almost everyone. As an atheist, I wouldn’t really care. What my survivors think is up to them.
Nobody claims it affects Mr. Wiesenthal; he’s dead. Yet we generally respect the wishes of people who are dead, notwithstanding that they cannot be affected, mainly because to do otherwise annoys the living - like the dead person’s friends and relations.
For example, as a society we implement people’s wills, we ask them to fill out organ donation cards, burial arrangements are made in advance, and the like. Why not just grind the dead guy up for pet food? After all, they are dead, and cannot care.
The reason is that - as a society, religious and athiest alike - we generally find it good manners to respect the wishes of dead people, as a general rule, insofar as they are expressed, and the wishes of the living conserning dead relations.
The reason why the forced baptisms of the middle ages are mentioned is not to make an analogy, but rather to explain the cultural history behind why baptising Jews - even dead Jews - is not considered an act of respect in the Jewish community. No-one seriously argues that what Mormons do is equivalent to some medieval inquisitor.
It is actually worse than just pissing. Throughout history various Christians, in an attempt to be helpful no doubt, have forcibly baptized Jews and even killed or tortured those who resisted. It was all done out of a great concern for the person.
Mormons get very offended by being called a cult. This is worse since it is not just words from their point of view.
Respect is defined by the person at the other end of the action. If I piss on the grave of a mother of a Mormon (I was thinking of this exact analogy) it is disrespectful whether of not I sincerely believe that it is symbolic of something good. Or is this okay if the pisser is an actual believer in the Church of the Golden Shower?