"I like to think that I've established my respect...

[_cksalmon]

"Distance has the way of making love understandable." No, that's not supposed to sound gay.

Chris

Radio Cure.

My mind is full of 'em.

[_silentkid]

Radio Cure.

My mind is full of 'em.

A perfect response.

[_Some Schmo]

What is meant by "respecting" a religion. I respect people's right to believe as they like. I respect religion in the sense that I try not to make offensive comments or act offensive or inappropriately around people of faith (exception being this board). I respect people who live their life according to a set of reasonable moral principles.

I DO NOT respect silly, superstitious iron-age belief systems, particularly when believers attempt to impose this silly, superstitious iron-age belief system on others.

I DO NOT respect beliefs that deny basic civil liberties or human dignity to individuals or groups, such as sexist, racist, or homophobic beliefs. I don't care if they are religiously based.

I DO NOT respect beliefs that use fear and guilt to manipulate and control others.

I DO NOT respect beliefs that justify unethical behavior if it somehow serves "God's will."

Nor do I respect magical or superstitious thinking in its other various manifestations. People who believe in this kind s*** (some religions included) deserve to offended, though for propriety's sake, we may prefer other people to do the offending.

I love what Dawkins was getting at in The God Delusion regarding the subject of affording different religious beliefs respect. Basically, he was saying that people instinctively know their religious beliefs are embarrassing, and so "respecting" their beliefs amounts to not asking about them in order to save the person the embarrassment of admitting a 19th century belief in modern times.

Classic!

Oh, and of course DCP is full of s***. We all know that; however, as superfluous as it is, more evidence of that fact is still fun. Oh, and I don't hate DCP either. I'm regularly entertained by his inconsistency and stupid arguments.

[_Doctor Steuss]

Good try, but no cigar.

Thank goodness that my consumption of Camacho Coyolar Puro is not dependant upon your approval.

Are you really expecting us to believe that your experience of the normal native English-speaker's use of 'so-called' in a controversial context does not overwhelmingly and in nearly every case carry the sense of "people say it is one of these [e.g. a massacre] but it isn't really?"

I’m not expecting “us” to believe anything. When I do have expectations of people being swayed by the evident context of a passage in a given book based on the author’s own words and not the reader’s presuppositions, I tend to keep those expectations relatively low.

Now I agree that in certain technical discussions 'so-called' may be a way of introducing a 'term of art': "In so-called 'gene splicing' one proceeds as follows". But that is not relevant here.

The mere fact that he follows up (after referring to it as the “so-called priesthood ban”) with a clarifier of what it was (i.e. “the practice prior to 1978 of denying ordination to the Church’s priesthood to male members with Black African ancestry”) should be enough evidence that Dr. Martins was using the term in the sense of “commonly referred to as” or “commonly known as” or “often referred to as.”

But, it being evident to someone familiar with a “normal native English-speaker’s” use of a conjunction followed by an explanation of the previous term preceded by the adjective of “so-called” probably isn’t relative here either.

The example you cite to support your reading of DCPs post is in fact a neat parallel to it - an LDS apologist referring to something he can't dodge (DCP: there WAS a massacre; Martins: there WAS a priesthood ban) but would like to hold at arm's length. Use of "so-called' as a distancing/denigrating strategy ONLY happens when there is an undeniable historical fact to deal with. Other wise one would say something like 'alleged' - if one thought there was a chance of getting away with it, which in the cases of the massacre and the ban there is not.

The example I cited was to support my reading (and anyone else with nominal reading comprehension) of Martins’ use of “so-called.” Beastie asked why he used “so-called” and I provided clarification that in this particular case (despite the prevalence others have towards obsession, not everything I say has to do with DCP), Martins was using the #1 (primary) definition in the Fourth Edition of The American Heritage Dictionary for “so-called” (i.e. “commonly called”).

For you to even imply that Martins’ (a man who adamantly argues against the notion that “…discussion of the priesthood ban and the old ideas related to it are irrelevant and inconsequential and that they should be set aside for good”) doesn’t believe there was a priesthood ban, or he is somehow engaging in some form of strategy by using “so-called,” or that he is in someway trying to downplay the practice is simply ridiculous.

Good try, but no Marlboro Menthol Ultra-light 100’s.

[_wenglund]

What is meant by "respecting" a religion. I respect people's right to believe as they like. I respect religion in the sense that I try not to make offensive comments or act offensive or inappropriately around people of faith (exception being this board). I respect people who live their life according to a set of reasonable moral principles.

I DO NOT respect silly, superstitious iron-age belief systems, particularly when believers attempt to impose this silly, superstitious iron-age belief system on others.

I DO NOT respect beliefs that deny basic civil liberties or human dignity to individuals or groups, such as sexist, racist, or homophobic beliefs. I don't care if they are religiously based.

I DO NOT respect beliefs that use fear and guilt to manipulate and control others.

I DO NOT respect beliefs that justify unethical behavior if it somehow serves "God's will."

Nor do I respect magical or superstitious thinking in its other various manifestations. People who believe in this kind s*** (some religions included) deserve to offended, though for propriety's sake, we may prefer other people to do the offending.

Right on. Suppose I claim to be a convert to the Aztec sun cult. Do you then 'respect' my conviction that the sun will not rise tomorrow unless I am permitted to practice my religion by tearing the hearts out of living human victims?

Suppose I claim to be a convert to Thuggee, the Indian cult that demanded that I should show my devotion to Mother Kali by infiltrating groups of travellers and then murdering them by strangulation. Do you respect my religion then, in any meaningful sense?

Suppose I believe that the only way to cure the AIDS epidemic is for all left-handed people to recite 'Mary had a little lamb" at noon on alternate Fridays? Do you have to refrain from laughing so long as I tell you it is my religion that says that?

While I may not agree with certain religious practices, and I may even think it disadvantageous to society to allow certain religious practice (such as what you mentioned of the Thuggee), and I may even prefer other curative alternatives (both secular and religious) to some religious denominations, I don't find intollerance and mockery to be edifying to anyone, particularly when interjected into interfaith dialogue. But, that may just be me.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Gadianton]

As to how a Calvinist views such statements, I'm not real sure as I don't know how far-reaching the belief in a lack of free will goes.

As much as I like to give Calvinists a hard time for Edwards's, "Sinners in the hands of an angry God," my all time favorite piece of religious writing, the "disgusting" matters of theology can be bent and twisted just like Mormon Smithism. And let's just note that there has never been a real Mormon theologin or "non-theologin' (for those who think it's too 'postmodern' to have a 'theology'). One of the reasons why Smithism is sold by some apologists as not theological is because Smith didn't think it through carefully enough and it's very inconsistent.

Edwards independently discovered the position of compatibilism or "soft determinism", and there are in fact Internet Mormons who also hold this position about Mormonism.

As one calvinist from ZLMB put it, I think it was Huck, if you contrast Calvinism with Arminianism, the free will doesn't really buy you much. Giving the choice of heaven and hell to us doesn't really help, because if there is a God, it's hard to argue that we know better than God where we should go. And my extension of this is that, if Mormons dispute it, then they have to be consistent and admit ethics are subjective. Almost every Mormon thinks that subjective ethics = nihilism, including DCP, so I win. Once again, Smithites are trapped. Atheism rules the day and stands proud. Mormons reveal that the candle BKP gave them snuffs out immediatly under the intense darkness of Satan, the God who the Book of Mormon testifies of that they really pray to.

It's kind of sad in a way, because with the exception of one or two maximum that I remember, the Calvinist representatives on all the religious message boards I've encountered have been the most respectful out of anyone.

[_Doctor Steuss]

[...] the Calvinist representatives on all the religious message boards I've encountered have been the most respectful out of anyone.

I haven't encountered many, so my anecdote is probably not worth much... but I've encountered about 50% that are very respectful and 50% that are just down-right nasty (one of which on an Evangelical board that made Parohan look like a puppy dog). in my opinion, people seem to be dicks or groovy hombres independent of their belief system (edited to add: thank goodness all atheists aren't judged by those morons at the Rational Response Squad, and conversely all Christians aren't judged by Ray Comfort).

One thing they have all had in common though is they have all been highly intelligent and knowledgeable. Sorta makes me want to be a Calvinist just in hope of vicariously being smart.

[_Chap]

What is meant by "respecting" a religion. I respect people's right to believe as they like. I respect religion in the sense that I try not to make offensive comments or act offensive or inappropriately around people of faith (exception being this board). I respect people who live their life according to a set of reasonable moral principles.

I DO NOT respect silly, superstitious iron-age belief systems, particularly when believers attempt to impose this silly, superstitious iron-age belief system on others.

I DO NOT respect beliefs that deny basic civil liberties or human dignity to individuals or groups, such as sexist, racist, or homophobic beliefs. I don't care if they are religiously based.

I DO NOT respect beliefs that use fear and guilt to manipulate and control others.

I DO NOT respect beliefs that justify unethical behavior if it somehow serves "God's will."

Nor do I respect magical or superstitious thinking in its other various manifestations. People who believe in this kind s*** (some religions included) deserve to offended, though for propriety's sake, we may prefer other people to do the offending.

Right on. Suppose I claim to be a convert to the Aztec sun cult. Do you then 'respect' my conviction that the sun will not rise tomorrow unless I am permitted to practice my religion by tearing the hearts out of living human victims?

Suppose I claim to be a convert to Thuggee, the Indian cult that demanded that I should show my devotion to Mother Kali by infiltrating groups of travellers and then murdering them by strangulation. Do you respect my religion then, in any meaningful sense?

Suppose I believe that the only way to cure the AIDS epidemic is for all left-handed people to recite 'Mary had a little lamb" at noon on alternate Fridays? Do you have to refrain from laughing so long as I tell you it is my religion that says that?

While I may not agree with certain religious practices, and I may even think it disadvantageous to society to allow certain religious practice (such as what you mentioned of the Thuggee), and I may even prefer other curative alternatives (both secular and religious) to some religious denominations, I don't find intollerance and mockery to be edifying to anyone, particularly when interjected into interfaith dialogue. But, that may just be me.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I hate to be unedifying* but what is it for you that is so special about a point of view being 'religious' that spares it from intolerance and mockery, however baseless and ridiculous (as in my third example) or horrible and inhuman (as in my first two examples) it may be? You mean that instead of simply hunting them down and hanging them, it would have been better, more 'edifying' if 19th century British officials in India had engaged the Thugs in 'interfaith dialogue' before they were executed?

I bet you don't believe that - in fact your post hints as much. If not, how do you decide which self-described religions are worthy of preservation from intolerance and mockery? Surely just being 'a religion' in the eyes of its adherents cannot be enough for you? If not, what is your criterion?

*Actually, on second thoughts, I don't care whether I 'edify you' or not. In fact, if you are taking 'edifying' in the old Christian sense of 'that which builds up [faith]', I want to do the reverse.

[_Chap]

Good try, but no cigar.

Thank goodness that my consumption of Camacho Coyolar Puro is not dependant upon your approval.

Are you really expecting us to believe that your experience of the normal native English-speaker's use of 'so-called' in a controversial context does not overwhelmingly and in nearly every case carry the sense of "people say it is one of these [e.g. a massacre] but it isn't really?"

I’m not expecting “us” to believe anything. When I do have expectations of people being swayed by the evident context of a passage in a given book based on the author’s own words and not the reader’s presuppositions, I tend to keep those expectations relatively low.

Now I agree that in certain technical discussions 'so-called' may be a way of introducing a 'term of art': "In so-called 'gene splicing' one proceeds as follows". But that is not relevant here.

The mere fact that he follows up (after referring to it as the “so-called priesthood ban”) with a clarifier of what it was (I.e. “the practice prior to 1978 of denying ordination to the Church’s priesthood to male members with Black African ancestry”) should be enough evidence that Dr. Martins was using the term in the sense of “commonly referred to as” or “commonly known as” or “often referred to as.”

But, it being evident to someone familiar with a “normal native English-speaker’s” use of a conjunction followed by an explanation of the previous term preceded by the adjective of “so-called” probably isn’t relative here either.

The example you cite to support your reading of DCPs post is in fact a neat parallel to it - an LDS apologist referring to something he can't dodge (DCP: there WAS a massacre; Martins: there WAS a priesthood ban) but would like to hold at arm's length. Use of "so-called' as a distancing/denigrating strategy ONLY happens when there is an undeniable historical fact to deal with. Other wise one would say something like 'alleged' - if one thought there was a chance of getting away with it, which in the cases of the massacre and the ban there is not.

The example I cited was to support my reading (and anyone else with nominal reading comprehension) of Martins’ use of “so-called.” Beastie asked why he used “so-called” and I provided clarification that in this particular case (despite the prevalence others have towards obsession, not everything I say has to do with DCP), Martins was using the #1 (primary) definition in the Fourth Edition of The American Heritage Dictionary for “so-called” (I.e. “commonly called”).

For you to even imply that Martins’ (a man who adamantly argues against the notion that “…discussion of the priesthood ban and the old ideas related to it are irrelevant and inconsequential and that they should be set aside for good”) doesn’t believe there was a priesthood ban, or he is somehow engaging in some form of strategy by using “so-called,” or that he is in someway trying to downplay the practice is simply ridiculous.

Good try, but no Marlboro Menthol Ultra-light 100’s.

I am happy to agree that I may have misdirected myself in my reading of your post about Martins, by not referring back to its context in your discussion with Beastie.

On the other hand, in LDS apologetic terms my experience is that whenever "so-called" is used, it serves as an attempt to take away some of the impact of an unwelcome reality that cannot be denied.

Please do try to give up smoking, even 'Ultra-Lights'.

[_rcrocket]

I DO NOT respect beliefs that use fear and guilt to manipulate and control others.

I DO NOT respect beliefs that justify unethical behavior if it somehow serves "God's will."

Nor do I respect magical or superstitious thinking in its other various manifestations. People who believe in this kind s*** (some religions included) deserve to offended, though for propriety's sake, we may prefer other people to do the offending.

Let me guess. You remain a member of the Church and have not resigned. Let me further guess that you look the other way when family members, perhaps your wife, uses community assets to contribute to the Church.

Looks like there is some begrudging respect going on, wouldnjasay?

rcrocket