Secular folks should worry.

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
User avatar
Doctor CamNC4Me
God
Posts: 8980
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 2:04 am

Re: Secular folks should worry.

Post by Doctor CamNC4Me »

Is this civil society, MG?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interra ... day_Saints
The church's attitude was reflected by past laws in Utah, where its members held a notable amount of political influence. In 1852, the Act in Relation to Service which allowed the enslavement of black people in Utah Territory was passed, and it also banned sexual intercourse between a white person and "any of the African race."[13]: 110 [14] That same day the Act for the relief of Indian Slaves and Prisoners which allowed white Utah residents to enslave Native Americans was passed, however, it did not contain any provisions on sexual intercourse. In 1888, the government of Utah Territory, whose population was about 80% Mormon in 1880, passed an anti-miscegenation law. The law prohibited marriages between a "negro" and a "mongolian" (i.e. Asian person)[15]: 87  and a "white person".[2]: 60  In 1890, black individuals made up less than 0.3% of Utah's population of 210,000 people, Chinese individuals made up less than 0.4%, and Native Americans made up 1.6%.[13]: 112  In 1939, the two-thirds-Mormon majority[16] in the Utah State Legislature expanded the law so it would prohibit a white person from marrying a "Mongolian, a member of the malay race or a mulatto, quadroon, or octoroon."[2]: 67  However, unlike laws which existed in other states, Utah's law did not prohibit marriages between white people and Native American people.[13]: 106  The laws which banned interracial marriages remained in place until they were repealed by the Utah State Legislature in 1963.[13]: 129 [17]
Hugh Nibley claimed he bumped into Adolf Hitler, Albert Einstein, Winston Churchill, Gertrude Stein, and the Grand Duke Vladimir Romanoff. Dishonesty is baked into Mormonism.
Philo Sofee
God
Posts: 5015
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2020 1:18 am

Re: Secular folks should worry.

Post by Philo Sofee »

Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:
Wed Mar 29, 2023 3:25 pm
Is this civil society, MG?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interra ... day_Saints
The church's attitude was reflected by past laws in Utah, where its members held a notable amount of political influence. In 1852, the Act in Relation to Service which allowed the enslavement of black people in Utah Territory was passed, and it also banned sexual intercourse between a white person and "any of the African race."[13]: 110 [14] That same day the Act for the relief of Indian Slaves and Prisoners which allowed white Utah residents to enslave Native Americans was passed, however, it did not contain any provisions on sexual intercourse. In 1888, the government of Utah Territory, whose population was about 80% Mormon in 1880, passed an anti-miscegenation law. The law prohibited marriages between a "negro" and a "mongolian" (i.e. Asian person)[15]: 87  and a "white person".[2]: 60  In 1890, black individuals made up less than 0.3% of Utah's population of 210,000 people, Chinese individuals made up less than 0.4%, and Native Americans made up 1.6%.[13]: 112  In 1939, the two-thirds-Mormon majority[16] in the Utah State Legislature expanded the law so it would prohibit a white person from marrying a "Mongolian, a member of the malay race or a mulatto, quadroon, or octoroon."[2]: 67  However, unlike laws which existed in other states, Utah's law did not prohibit marriages between white people and Native American people.[13]: 106  The laws which banned interracial marriages remained in place until they were repealed by the Utah State Legislature in 1963.[13]: 129 [17]
Ya gotta admit, MG2.0 has a point. Secular folks REALLY NEED TO WORRY if too many of these kinds of F*CKERS get into political power...
User avatar
Doctor CamNC4Me
God
Posts: 8980
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 2:04 am

Re: Secular folks should worry.

Post by Doctor CamNC4Me »

Hi MG2.0,

I know you read the board even when you’ve packed up your toys and cried all the way home. In this time, where General Conference is boring the everliving crap out of Mormons across the globe (all 2M+/- who actually still participate in the charade), I thought I’d give you some milk to sip as you ponderize the question, “What constitutes a civil society?”

Example #230,387 of Mormon civil society:

1. Using dIsCeRnMeNt a registered sex offender, Michael Adam Davis, was called to be Elders Quorum President in the Kasson, Minnesota branch. He then went on to sexually abuse a young man in the branch and was grooming another.

2. In November 2020, Mormon church attorneys defended said registered sex offender in court by submitting an affidavit in his defense. Instead of speaking up for the victim in court, the Mormon church chose not to. Davis was placed in a position of authority over minors in the Branch, and that there were concerns about him, but the church chose not to protect the children from this sex predator.

3. In March 2020, a whistleblower who brought this situation to SLC authorities was told, on multiple occasions, in person and via email, he was was going down the "path of apostasy." The church then revoked his Priesthood authority and revoked his authorization to administer the sacrament without any formal disciplinary process. The church continued to attack the whistleblower, to include removing his access to his membership account.

In a civil society, is it too much to ask the wrongdoers to publicly acknowledge their responsibility for putting a registered sex offender in a position of authority, and for defending him in court.

In a civil society, wouldn’t the church take basic measures like completing background checks, discontinuing the abuse helpline, and making the protection of children their priority?

In a civil society, wouldn’t a church publicly apologize for revoking the whistleblower’s priesthood authority without any formal disciplinary process, and for deactivating their membership account without any forewarning, discussion, or formal disciplinary process?

I hope these words find you well between naps taken today as the Mormon gerontocracy plays at Christian discipleship.

- Doc
Hugh Nibley claimed he bumped into Adolf Hitler, Albert Einstein, Winston Churchill, Gertrude Stein, and the Grand Duke Vladimir Romanoff. Dishonesty is baked into Mormonism.
MG 2.0
God
Posts: 3628
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2021 4:45 pm

Re: Secular folks should worry.

Post by MG 2.0 »

There were a number of times when there seemed to be a general confusion on the usage of the word ‘secular’. In this article the author uses the word in such a way that I think her usage matches pretty much my own. She also expresses some important things to consider in reference to the GenZ’s movement towards progressivism as was mentioned in the article linked to in the opening post of this thread.

Some food for thought:

https://www.aei.org/op-eds/how-religiou ... al-health/

Some key points:
… a number of scholars have recently noticed, the mental health crisis being experienced by many teen and young adult women may have something to do with how little power they feel they have.

… Writing for the Free Press recently, Jonathan Haidt cited a widely accepted theory in psychology about differences in how people perceive how much control they have:

“Some people have an internal locus of control — they feel as if they have the power to choose a course of action and make it happen, while other people have an external locus of control — they have little sense of agency and they believe that strong forces or agents outside of themselves will determine what happens to them.”

… A number of factors have led young women — and liberal young women in particular — to have more of an external locus of control than previous generations or than their conservative peers. Social media certainly seems to have had an outsized effect on girls.

But it is also the messages that young progressives have embraced as a result of their political ideology — especially the idea that the world is made up of oppressors and victims (or good people and bad people) and the idea that another person’s words can cause a person deep and lasting harm.

What’s interesting is that these are ideas that liberals often associate with being a conservative or being strongly religious. It is not uncommon to see the secular media portray religious young people as powerless, simply following orders from their elders or from God.

… And it is also not uncommon to see religious folks portrayed as believing that the world is made up of good people and bad people, or as being so sensitive as to think that a few words can cause them real harm. They are the ones who want to “ban” books and who condemn swearing or taking the Lord’s name in vain.

But multiple studies have found religious belief is correlated with positive mental health. An interesting paper on Orthodox Jews published in the Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion found that during the pandemic, “A Closeness-to-God Index predicted lower levels of depression and anxiety, less perceived stress, and less loneliness.”

… So what is the difference between this conservative religious worldview and the progressive secular one?

For one thing, rather than making kids feel like cogs in a machine, religion teaches them that God sees them as individuals who are valuable and helpful. Secular progressives see structural barriers to change and increasingly believe that these are all but impossible to change without massive government interventions.

My fifth grader this year was shown a video in school that said the world would end in 2030. It’s hardly the kind of thing that makes one feel empowered; rather, it just makes you feel like you’re doomed and there’s nothing you can do (though one girl did announce she was going vegan as a result). Religious folks are still of the opinion that small actions by individuals have the potential to fix things.

… While secular liberals may divide the world into good people and bad people, or oppressors and victims, religious people tend to believe that everyone is capable of good and evil. But this too gives them a sense of power — power that they can change themselves and that they can influence the behavior of others.

… it’s also worth thinking about how religious affiliation helps young people find meaning and take control of their lives.
Earlier I had mentioned the same thing as this author, that secularization gradually moves a society towards ‘willing’ that government take more control over people’s lives. And as mentioned earlier, secular progressives ought to be concerned with this.

Just how much control to we want government to have vs. individual agency and freedom/liberty?

I realize that secular liberal progressives will find ways to build around this and wrap it all up in a way that makes it look like a utopia. But the fact remains, as time goes on there will be greater and greater conflict between secular progressive liberals and conservatives.

One more important point this opinion piece brings to the fore:

The current attitudes among young progressives were not always the attitudes on the left. Individual empowerment (which often led to communal empowerment) was commonly preached in the past. Indeed, it was preached by folks on the left who were often religious themselves.
Times, they are a changin’.

This is why it is important for religious folks not give up the fight for what they believe is right and good. And it’s important that religious folks follow the teachings of Jesus and be peacemakers when issues are escalated to either the far right or left of the religious and/or political spectrum. Because the truth is, there will be those that resort to ad hominem attacks, twisting of words, and verbal abuse to try and ‘rule the day’.

In conference this past weekend the teachings of Jesus in regards to being a peacemaker was emphasized a number of times. President Nelson’s talk dealt mainly with this. My hope is that as time goes on and as secular progressive liberals become a more outspoken segment of society we can all live together with some degree of harmony.

That would be a key component of ‘civil society’.

As it is, there is just too much bickering, name calling, and incivility these days. Especially online it seems.

Regards,
MG
Marcus
God
Posts: 5034
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2021 10:44 pm

Re: Secular folks should worry.

Post by Marcus »

MG 2.0 wrote:
Mon Apr 03, 2023 5:46 pm
There were a number of times when there seemed to be a general confusion on the usage of the word ‘secular’. In this article the author uses the word in such a way that I think her usage matches pretty much my own. She also expresses some important things to consider in reference to the GenZ’s movement towards progressivism as was mentioned in the article linked to in the opening post of this thread.

Some food for thought:

https://www.aei.org/op-eds/how-religiou ... al-health/

Some key points:
For one thing, rather than making kids feel like cogs in a machine, religion teaches them that God sees them as individuals who are valuable and helpful. Secular progressives see structural barriers to change and increasingly believe that these are all but impossible to change without massive government interventions.
Hmm. So, the religious person defines what religious people believe. And then, they define what 'secular progressives' believe.

Do they get it right? No. In my opinion, not even close. But it does sound like an argument our resident mgtow/pua advocate would argue.

Continuing, from your quote:
...Religious folks are still of the opinion that small actions by individuals have the potential to fix things.

… While secular liberals may divide the world into good people and bad people, or oppressors and victims, religious people tend to believe that everyone is capable of good and evil.
Again, another stereotypical description by a religious person--this time about both sides! Can you provide evidence for this opinion?

Continuing...
… it’s also worth thinking about how religious affiliation helps young people find meaning and take control of their lives.
And also worth thinking about how other things besides religion help young people find meaning and take control of their lives.
mentalgymnast wrote: Earlier I had mentioned the same thing as this author, that secularization gradually moves a society towards ‘willing’ that government take more control over people’s lives. And as mentioned earlier, secular progressives ought to be concerned with this.
Really? Before becoming concerned, could you provide some evidence for this position? Besides just an editorial?

Or maybe even just make a persuasive argument? Just stating it is not really moving the conversation forward.
MG 2.0
God
Posts: 3628
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2021 4:45 pm

Re: Secular folks should worry.

Post by MG 2.0 »

Marcus wrote:
Mon Apr 03, 2023 6:17 pm

Do they get it right? No. In my opinion, not even close.
And you are entitled to your opinion.

I would feel comfortable in speculating that the author of this opinion piece took the time to do a bit of research before presenting their opinions and findings.

I don’t feel as comfortable in taking your opinion at face value. It’s worthless.

But of course you are free to express your opinion without providing any contrary evidence that would dismiss this author’s opinion piece in such a perfunctory manner.

Your response is duly noted. And expected.

Regards,
MG
Marcus
God
Posts: 5034
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2021 10:44 pm

Re: Secular folks should worry.

Post by Marcus »

MG 2.0 wrote:
Mon Apr 03, 2023 6:33 pm
Marcus wrote:
Mon Apr 03, 2023 6:17 pm

Do they get it right? No. In my opinion, not even close.
And you are entitled to your opinion.

I would feel comfortable in speculating that the author of this opinion piece took the time to do a bit of research before presenting their opinions and findings.

I don’t feel as comfortable in taking your opinion at face value. It’s worthless.

But of course you are free to express your opinion without providing any contrary evidence that would dismiss this author’s opinion piece in such a perfunctory manner...
of course. But it's your source, and you asserted a position in the form of this opinion piece, which didn't contain any justification for many of the statements. Do you have any evidence or even a persuasive argument for the statements?
MG 2.0
God
Posts: 3628
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2021 4:45 pm

Re: Secular folks should worry.

Post by MG 2.0 »

Marcus wrote:
Mon Apr 03, 2023 6:59 pm
MG 2.0 wrote:
Mon Apr 03, 2023 6:33 pm


And you are entitled to your opinion.

I would feel comfortable in speculating that the author of this opinion piece took the time to do a bit of research before presenting their opinions and findings.

I don’t feel as comfortable in taking your opinion at face value. It’s worthless.

But of course you are free to express your opinion without providing any contrary evidence that would dismiss this author’s opinion piece in such a perfunctory manner...
of course. But it's your source, and you asserted a position in the form of this opinion piece, which didn't contain any justification for many of the statements. Do you have any evidence or even a persuasive argument for the statements?
There are four links provided in the opinion piece that I linked to. A good place to start?

You’re chasing your tail. Fun to watch at first, not so much time after time.

Regards,
MG
Marcus
God
Posts: 5034
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2021 10:44 pm

Re: Secular folks should worry.

Post by Marcus »

MG 2.0 wrote:
Mon Apr 03, 2023 7:03 pm
Marcus wrote:
Mon Apr 03, 2023 6:59 pm
of course. But it's your source, and you asserted a position in the form of this opinion piece, which didn't contain any justification for many of the statements. Do you have any evidence or even a persuasive argument for the statements?
There are four links provided in the opinion piece that I linked to. A good place to start?
It's your position, feel free to support it.
MG 2.0
God
Posts: 3628
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2021 4:45 pm

Re: Secular folks should worry.

Post by MG 2.0 »

Marcus wrote:
Mon Apr 03, 2023 7:05 pm
MG 2.0 wrote:
Mon Apr 03, 2023 7:03 pm


There are four links provided in the opinion piece that I linked to. A good place to start?
It's your position, feel free to support it.
Again, I would suggest you investigate the links provided in the opinion piece.

Then I would suggest who you’re up against.

https://www.aei.org/profile/naomi-riley/

Yes, she’s a conservative. But she is well respected. Her opinion MATTERS. It is somewhat frustrating to observe the lack of respect secular humanist liberals have towards those that have differing points of view but who also write in such a way that they are following standards of journalistic integrity, etc.

Anyway, I felt like this opinion piece would add to the ‘record’ in this thread as lurkers and others are looking at different points of view. It’s rather obvious that your point of view is going to run in opposition to Naomi Riley’s.

https://www.naomiriley.com/

https://www.naomiriley.com/articles/

My guess is that she also has concerns about the trajectory of GenZ as laid out in the OP.

Regards,
MG
Post Reply