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

[_wenglund]

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.

I am using the term "edify" generically (which includes a secular connotation if you will), as such I hope you haven't closed your mind entirely to what I say.

You ask a very good question about where to draw the line on intolerance and mockery. Like you, I believe intolerance, and to a much lesser extent mockery, are warranted in some instances, though certainly not all.

However, I don't know about you, but what guides where I draw the line is the end objective I see for myself and society as a whole--i.e. maximize happiness, and becoming the very best people we can be, and satisfying the basic human need to love and be loved and to respect and be respected. To me, this boils down to the Golden Rule (which you can interpret in a secular way if needed), which necessitates erroring on the side of tolerance and respect.

And, in more specific terms, I use these three somewhat subjective criteria:

Reserving intolerance, and to a lesser degree mockery, rarely, though more in terms of:
1. Specific behaviors rather than beliefs.
2. Specific behaviors that have or will have a significant negative impact on me, and those I love and care about, and others who believe and practice differently, as well as society as a whole.
3. As a last resorts--after exhausting more proven methods for preventing the significantly negative behaviors,
as well as effecting change in beliefs that may be generating significantly negative behaviors.

In other words, if someone is made happy and more loving by believing in sacramental transubstantiation (believing that the sacramental waffer literally turns into the body of Christ), and since it is of little or no harm to me and others, I think that even though I have a different point of view, such a belief is deserving of my tolerance and respect. Whereas, if Muslim extremists hijack several planes and fly them into the Twin Towers and the Pentagon, I think that warrants significant intolerance, and perhaps even mockery and scorn.

I find this criteria and general social philosophy works well for all parties concerned.

What do you think?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Chap]

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.

And I am happy to agree that I was overly uppity in my post, and could have simply said “go back and re-read the context of my comments to Beastie.” In my defense though, there was a huge line at Starbucks this morning, and I had to forgo an iced vanilla latte that I needed oh-so-much.

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.

This is possible. Admittedly, I haven't encountered it all that often (or at least don't recall). Dr. Martins' usage may not have even stood out to me if it hadn't have been for the recent hub-a-ballub over Dr. Peterson's letter.

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

From your keyboard to the powers of heaven... it ain't an easy thing to kick.

Will you kindly stop being a nice reasonable Mormon? that's passive aggression. Knock it off, or I'll get you banned.

[_Doctor Steuss]

Will you kindly stop being a nice reasonable Mormon? that's passive aggression. Knock it off, or I'll get you banned.

My apologies... er, I mean…

Burn in hell you anonymous heathen bigot!

[_karl61]

passive-aggressive = Mormon

[_The Nehor]

passive-aggressive = Mormon

Did we date some of the same girls?

[_guy sajer]

[Edit: I think I have successfuly ruined CKS's thread.

Sorry. :-(

No, we can save it, Steuss!

I submit that a bad potluck casserole may have been the impetus behind DCP's rude remarks to CKSalmon. Dr. Peterson was likely jealous of the good food served at the potlucks of Presbyterian churches and was delirious from Miracle Whip consumption when he lost his composure and lashed out at Chris.

At any rate, DCP's comments really need no commentary. They speak volumes about him on their own, in my opinion.

Kimberly Ann

PS - You are a dirty boy, Steuss. And as long as we're quoting Wilco, I'm trying to break your heart.

So how many England Ice Teas did you drink the other day?

Mission accomplished?

[_Chap]

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.

I am using the term "edify" generically (which includes a secular connotation if you will), as such I hope you haven't closed your mind entirely to what I say.

You ask a very good question about where to draw the line on intolerance and mockery. Like you, I believe intolerance, and to a much lesser extent mockery, are warranted in some instances, though certainly not all.

However, I don't know about you, but what guides where I draw the line is the end objective I see for myself and society as a whole--I.e. maximize happiness, and becoming the very best people we can be, and satisfying the basic human need to love and be loved and to respect and be respected. To me, this boils down to the Golden Rule (which you can interpret in a secular way if needed), which necessitates erroring on the side of tolerance and respect.

And, in more specific terms, I use these three somewhat subjective criteria:

Reserving intolerance, and to a lesser degree mockery, rarely, though more in terms of:
1. Specific behaviors rather than beliefs.
2. Specific behaviors that have or will have a significant negative impact on me, and those I love and care about, and others who believe and practice differently, as well as society as a whole.
3. As a last resorts--after exhausting more proven methods for preventing the significantly negative behaviors,
as well as effecting change in beliefs that may be generating significantly negative behaviors.

In other words, if someone is made happy and more loving by believing in sacramental transubstantiation (believing that the sacramental waffer literally turns into the body of Christ), and since it is of little or no harm to me and others, I think that even though I have a different point of view, such a belief is deserving of my tolerance and respect. Whereas, if Muslim extremists hijack several planes and fly them into the Twin Towers and the Pentagon, I think that warrants significant intolerance, and perhaps even mockery and scorn.

I find this criteria and general social philosophy works well for all parties concerned.

What do you think?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I can only respond by describing the general principle I have tried to teach my children, which is that of trying (as far as practicable and consistent with common sense) to act with kindness and compassion towards those who are not trying to harm you or others. This can have trivial behavioral consequences, such as not putting one's elbows on the table when eating in the presence of an elderly relation who considers it is bad manners - there is no rational reason for keeping the elbows off the table, apart from the fact that the elderly relation will be distressed by a practice they have long ago internalised as unmannerly. It also means that whatever your views on the mass, you do not pursue elderly Sicilian ladies up to the altar rail whispering "You do realise that the Latin (well, Italian nowadays) words at the consecration bear little significance to the Aramaic phrase probably uttered by Jesus at the Last Supper". (Besides, she may have a big Sicilian grandson with a short temper).

Similarly, when Jehovah's witnesses or Seventh Day Adventists call at my door, I try to listen to them politely for a while, aware of the fact that they usually get nothing but rude rejection from those to whom they try to bring what they believe to be the message of salvation. Heck, I even give Seventh Day Adventists a donation sometimes, because they do run hospitals in the third world. I have never been called on by LDS missionaries, but after what I have read about the miserable lives many of them lead, I think I would invite them in and offer them - well, whatever it is they are allowed to drink, and something to eat, on condition they did not try to convert me (which condition, I suspect, might be a blessed relief from their point of view).

BUT - if we are on an open discussion board, where everybody is there voluntarily, and one's interlocutor is articulate and confident, and clearly out to win - why, that is the time to take the gloves off, and insist on the primacy of reason and evidence. They matter more than anything in such a case. People who can't deal with that deserve the dirty end of the stick, and that can legitimately include being made fun of if the situation merits it.

[_Bond...James Bond]

You must like casseroles consisting of tater tots floating atop a mixture of Cream of Something soup and Miracle Whip. Blech!

KA

People eat that??? OMFG!!! That sounds like a description of my dog's vomit.

[_KimberlyAnn]

So how many England Ice Teas did you drink the other day?

Mission accomplished?

Guy, you just had to mention my debauchery here on the board, didn't you!? ;)

They're Long Island Ice Teas, and I had three at the luncheon and five later at the hotel bar, along with a few other drinks, so yes, mission accomplished. Accomplished too well! I didn't have a hangover, though, thanks to my friend MishMagnet, who helped me to my hotel room when I couldn't get there on my own. She brought me food and made me drink plenty of water all night long so I felt just fine Saturday morning.

Thanks for asking. I'm glad my first experience getting plastered wasn't as bad as yours. :P (One mention of debauchery deserves another...)

KA

[_Runtu]

Guy, you just had to mention my debauchery here on the board, didn't you!? ;)

They're Long Island Ice Teas, and I had three at the luncheon and five later at the hotel bar, along with a few other drinks, so yes, mission accomplished. Accomplished too well!

Holy crap! I thought you'd had too many at lunch, but wow, 5 more and other drinks? I think I'd have been in a coma at that point. To tell you the truth, I've been so stressed out, if I hadn't been driving home to Provo, I might have outdrunk you.

I didn't have a hangover, though, thanks to my friend MishMagnet, who helped me to my hotel room when I couldn't get there on my own. She brought me food and made me drink plenty of water all night long so I felt just fine Saturday morning.

Thanks for asking. I'm glad my first experience getting plastered wasn't as bad as yours. :P (One mention of debauchery deserves another...)

KA

I'm glad you're OK. My one and only experience getting mildly drunk was not a happy one. Glad you survived it.