Some Schmo wrote:It's important to note that the name is most certainly not intended to mean they think they're smarter than other people, and they aren't trying to disabuse people of their faith. They are simply an equal rights movement for people with a naturalistic worldview (atheists, agnostics, or anyone else who may hold that view), and that's about it.
It's fine for people with a naturalistic worldview to organize for equal rights and I think the organization itself is a good idea, but I'm not sure I agree with you that the name isn't intended to imply that they're smarter than other people. I take it at it's face value, and calling themselves Brights speaks for itself, in my opinion.
asbestosman wrote:* Note: not that there's anything wrong with being gay unless of course you promise not to engage in homosexual activities which LDS members do just as they promise to obstain from tea.
I don't get what you're saying here, asbestosman. There's nothing wrong with being gay unless you do promise not to engage in homosexual activities? Is that what you meant to say, or did you mean to say "'as long as' gays promise not to engage in homosexual activities..."?
There's nothing wrong with being gay no matter what they do with their sex lives. Comparing giving up one's sexuality to abstaining from tea is absurd! I hope that wasn't what you were doing.
Would you mind clarifying your statement? I'd appreciate it.
"bright" was supposed to be a sort of vague positive sounding word like "gay". Bright as in sunny, happy, or full of light.
Someone noticed that just having a word (like gay) somehow helped politically. It wasn't supposed to sound like an assertion of IQ.
The only reason I don't want to call myself a bright is that I am not primarily defined by my atheism/agnosticism.
I might change my mind after all but I would still be basically the same guy with similar politics and interests should that happen.
asbestosman wrote:* Note: not that there's anything wrong with being gay unless of course you promise not to engage in homosexual activities which LDS members do just as they promise to obstain from tea.
I don't get what you're saying here, asbestosman. There's nothing wrong with being gay unless you do promise not to engage in homosexual activities? Is that what you meant to say, or did you mean to say "'as long as' gays promise not to engage in homosexual activities..."?
There's nothing wrong with being gay no matter what they do with their sex lives. Comparing giving up one's sexuality to abstaining from tea is absurd! I hope that wasn't what you were doing.
Would you mind clarifying your statement? I'd appreciate it.
Thanks,
KA
There's nothing wrong with being gay or being a practicing gay anymore than it'd be wrong to eat pork. However, if one promises to obstain from pork but partakes, then it is wrong. I have said nothing about whether one should or should not promise to refrain from homosexuality / pork / coffee / whatever. I only mean to imply that those who make certain promises should keep them. By no means does that include most gays. Heck, there may even be cases where reneging on such promises is better than keeping them (if it makes one suicidal, for example).
Well, maybe astaining from pork / tea doesn't compare to sexuality. Maybe nothing does. I still think that promises are generally important although again there may be times that it's better to break them than to keep them (as with suicidal people).
In any case it's not up to me to judge someone on sexuality. I'm not a bishop / SP so I don't have to worry about temple recommends. As for the rest of it, I'm perfectly happy to enjoy the full company of gays. The end of their situation is between them and God just as my light-mindedness is. Heck, maybe God wishes we wouldn't wand LDS gays promise to abstain. I'm fine with letting them believe as they will without guilt-trips or whatnot. They certainly don't need any condescension, condemnation, nor bigorty from me. I'm just living my religion as best I can while allowing others to live life as they best see fit.
Last edited by Analytics on Tue Jul 24, 2007 4:38 am, edited 2 times in total.
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy. eritis sicut dii I support NCMO
KimberlyAnn wrote:Does anyone else think the relatively new 'Brights' movement is sickeningly pretentious?
No more pretentious than a certain religious group calling themselves "Saints."
True. Calling one's self a saint is pretentious. How embarrassing that I labeled myself as such for so long! At least I finally figured things out and no longer consider myself a saint. But relinquishing sainthood is no real loss. It's much more fun being a sinner!
KA
I doubt that when LDS refer to themselves as "saints" they think of a "saint" in the same way as... say... Catholics do. It's a pretty benign term in my opinion, in LDS culture.
(and my spellchecker isn't working... so please forgive any errors that might be in the above)
"Some people never go crazy. What truly horrible lives they must lead." ~Charles Bukowski
asbestosman wrote:* Note: not that there's anything wrong with being gay unless of course you promise not to engage in homosexual activities which LDS members do just as they promise to obstain from tea.
I don't get what you're saying here, asbestosman. There's nothing wrong with being gay unless you do promise not to engage in homosexual activities? Is that what you meant to say, or did you mean to say "'as long as' gays promise not to engage in homosexual activities..."?
There's nothing wrong with being gay no matter what they do with their sex lives. Comparing giving up one's sexuality to abstaining from tea is absurd! I hope that wasn't what you were doing.
Would you mind clarifying your statement? I'd appreciate it.
Thanks,
KA
There's nothing wrong with being gay or being a practicing gay anymore than it'd be wrong to eat pork. However, if one promises to obstain from pork but partakes, then it is wrong. I have said nothing about whether one should or should not promise to refrain from homosexuality / pork / coffee / whatever. I only mean to imply that those who make certain promises should keep them. By no means does that include most gays. Heck, there may even be cases where reneging on such promises is better than keeping them (if it makes one suicidal, for example).
Well, maybe astaining from pork / tea doesn't compare to sexuality. Maybe nothing does. I still think that promises are generally important although again there may be times that it's better to break them than to keep them (as with suicidal people).
Thanks for clarifying, asbestosman.
I submit that it's wrong to ask people to abstain from eating pork but that it's sinister to ask them to deny their sexuality. That's much more wrong than someone breaking a ridiculous promise made under coercion. The Mormon church tells gays they cannot hold the priesthood, get the blessings of the temple, in effect, make it to heaven, if they are a practicing homosexual. Gays must promise to be forever celibate to have any favor with Mormon God, who in his infinite un-wisdom made them gay in the first place! How screwed up is that?
Some promises are important. Those made to a fraudulent quasi-cult aren't.
Doctor Steuss wrote:I doubt that when LDS refer to themselves as "saints" they think of a "saint" in the same way as... say... Catholics do. It's a pretty benign term in my opinion, in LDS culture.
(and my spellchecker isn't working... so please forgive any errors that might be in the above)
I agree in LDS culture the word "saint" has been diluted to mean something much less than it does in Catholicism. But, to many non-Mormons, it does indeed come across as pompous. I had two good friends tell me so after I left Mormonism. They mentioned it then because they felt it wouldn't offend me.
by the way, I didn't see any spelling errors, Steuss. Way to go!
KimberlyAnn wrote:I submit that it's wrong to ask people to abstain from eating pork but that it's sinister to ask them to deny their sexuality. That's much more wrong than someone breaking a ridiculous promise made under coercion. The Mormon church tells gays they cannot hold the priesthood, get the blessings of the temple, in effect, make it to heaven, if they are a practicing homosexual. Gays must promise to be forever celibate to have any favor with Mormon God, who in his infinite un-wisdom made them gay in the first place! How screwed up is that?
Some promises are important. Those made to a fraudulent quasi-cult aren't.
Maybe Mormonism is wrong on that account. I personally am strongly opposed to guilt-trips / peer-pressure to get people to make such promises in the first place.
I of course disagree with characterizing the church as fraudlent. Perhaps we are mistaken, but if so I don't see why that somehow makes it OK to renege on promises. If those promises were extracted through peer-pressure then perhaps it is OK, but it will certainly come at some kind of cost. I would be more likely to wonder if such a person might make promises to me and then break them if he later feels they were made under duress or because I pressured him. Does that mean the person should feel ashamed of breaking a promise made under duress? No. I do wonder, however, how easy it is to judge when something is made under duress and when it was merely something we really wanted and later regretted the cost of.
Last edited by Analytics on Tue Jul 24, 2007 4:58 am, edited 1 time in total.
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy. eritis sicut dii I support NCMO
Tarski wrote:"bright" was supposed to be a sort of vague positive sounding word like "gay". Bright as in sunny, happy, or full of light. Someone noticed that just having a word (like gay) somehow helped politically. It wasn't supposed to sound like an assertion of IQ.
The only reason I don't want to call myself a bright is that I am not primarily defined by my atheism/agnosticism. I might change my mind after all but I would still be basically the same guy with similar politics and interests should that happen.
Well, they should have chosen something less apt to be misinterpreted, then. Brights just sounds pretentious.
I think they should have called themselves Shinys. That's similar to Brights but not as pompous. Also, they could have used R.E.M.'s Shiny Happy People as their theme song. They could have even modified it to Shiny Happy Skeptics. Too bad they didn't ask me before they came up with such a ridiculous name for themselves. ;)