SilverKnight, February 4, 2010 wrote:The LDS church is not a humanitarian charity organization. Your comparison to the Salvation Army is flawed on many levels.
[SNIP]
The Salvation Army is not a church, though it was a created by christians. It is a charitable organization whose sole purpose is humanitarian aid. They don't build churches, temples or send out missionaries.
Mordecai wrote: You do know it's racist to imply that black people are like gay people, right? Racism means you project stereo-typical behaviors onto a race, which means that comparing them to gay people is racist, seeing as gay people, by definition, behave differently.
I am really disgusted that you would use these images, minimizing what black people suffered to prop up your absurd political agenda.
Mordecai could stand to read some books, especially one on the history of the American civil rights struggle. He could start by learning about Bayard Rustin: "The barometer of where one is on human rights questions is no longer the black community, it's the gay community. Because it is the community which is most easily mistreated."
From the Ernest L. Wilkinson Diaries: "ELW dreams he's spattered w/ grease. Hundreds steal his greasy pants."
LeSellers waxing poetic (On the - Are Mormon Marriages Messy - thread):
LDS marriages are messy if one wants a facile life, one without commitment, commitment to God, first, to one's spouse only a nose behind Him, and to one's family. Because putting one's self first makes the juggling act required to do so one of juggling chain saws and bowling balls. Sooner or later, the balls crash down and the saws slice off an arm, but usually the arm of your spouse.
I detest my loose style and my libertine sentiments. I thank God, who has removed from my eyes the veil... Adrian Beverland
being eminently reasonable to another's point of view
Selek wrote:I think you are all being horribly unfair to FoxtrotUniform44- his attitude and beliefs have a long and distinguished pedigree.
They led to centuries of pogroms, forced marches, and mass executions.
They led to forced sterilizations and lobotomies in the United States as recently as the 1920's, and to an ongoing program of selective/preemptive extermination which continues to this day.
They have been used for over a century now to justify State-sponsored euthanasia in both America and Europe, and to a lesser extent, in South American countries strongly influenced by certain European ideologies.
They led to Eugenics programs which lasted almost fifty years in both the United States and Europe- and led to the cleansing of 'inferior' populations as late as the 1980's and 90's.
FoxtrotUniform's belief that bloodlines, beliefs, and ideological disciplines- however odious- must be kept pure is what led to the world-wide sport of expelling Jews, of deriding blacks and Mexicans as 'unintelligent' and has been used to justify everything from slavery to genocide.
In the face of such historical precedent, who are we to point out that his mindset (though not method) is identical to Torquemada's?
Given the long and illustrious pedigree of his new theology, who are we to point out that is identical in scope and justification to the official policies of the most brutal police states in the history (and current events) of the planet?
Who are we to point out that his mindset is enthusiastically embraced by the makers and purveyors of gulags, crematoriums, and mass graves?
Such a simple comparison of ideologies, mindsets and of public statements (both those of Foxtrot Uniform and of his ideological brethren)- a fair examination of the facts- is ungentlemanly and unkind.
After all, he and his fellow travelers must know far better than we (the "lesser breeds" and "lesser minds") what the weight of history implies for his new-found faith.
To be filed under: The best rebuttal is a personal attack
Stargazer on 7 December 2010 - 08:36 PM, said:
You're quite sickening, you know that? Prejudice and bigotry is ugly wherever you find it, but when you find it wrapped in the flag, so to speak, of pseudo-intellectuallism, as one sees here, well... that's quite an accomplishment.
Do you have anything for an encore, or have you shot your wad at this point?
Oh, are we arresting gay people for "living together as husband and wife?" This is a loaded statement, implying that gays are banned from something. They are not. The state is banned from calling gay unions, "marriage." Why is the left so smug about having the state adopt their far left (obviously false) dogma, that a gay union is the same as a heterosexual union, but they have a fit if the state has the ten commandments up somewhere?
Is this not an egregious example of hypocrisy?: "The most important law is clearly to keep the state separate from religion, so we can avoid the state adopting a minority dogma that will lead to an unjust judiciary. Oh, my dogma? Well, my dogma is True and Righteous. The state absolutely must adopt it. If they don't, they're violating fundamental rights!"
I'm used to you guys avoiding the real issue of whether a gay union has significant differences from a straight union or not. If it does, clearly, it shouldn't have the same name and be treated the same. Because again, that implies a dogma, and that doesn't belong in the gov't anymore than say, the idea that babies who don't get baptized don't go to heaven.
Can anyone explain just what in the hell he is trying to say here?
I detest my loose style and my libertine sentiments. I thank God, who has removed from my eyes the veil... Adrian Beverland
Oh, are we arresting gay people for "living together as husband and wife?" This is a loaded statement, implying that gays are banned from something. They are not. The state is banned from calling gay unions, "marriage." Why is the left so smug about having the state adopt their far left (obviously false) dogma, that a gay union is the same as a heterosexual union, but they have a fit if the state has the ten commandments up somewhere?
Is this not an egregious example of hypocrisy?: "The most important law is clearly to keep the state separate from religion, so we can avoid the state adopting a minority dogma that will lead to an unjust judiciary. Oh, my dogma? Well, my dogma is True and Righteous. The state absolutely must adopt it. If they don't, they're violating fundamental rights!"
I'm used to you guys avoiding the real issue of whether a gay union has significant differences from a straight union or not. If it does, clearly, it shouldn't have the same name and be treated the same. Because again, that implies a dogma, and that doesn't belong in the gov't anymore than say, the idea that babies who don't get baptized don't go to heaven.
Can anyone explain just what in the hell he is trying to say here?
No. None of that makes any sense whatsoever. It's just a hodge podge of stuff he doesn't think he likes (he's not sure why, though)...
From the Ernest L. Wilkinson Diaries: "ELW dreams he's spattered w/ grease. Hundreds steal his greasy pants."
Zakuska wrote:I asked a question on another board:
How many Polygamists are in Jesus Christ's would pile that Evangelical Christians would rather sweep under the rug and "white wash" the the history to expunge the record?
Let he who would pile cast the first log...
From the Ernest L. Wilkinson Diaries: "ELW dreams he's spattered w/ grease. Hundreds steal his greasy pants."
The Catholic Church seems to have, and use, a concept of "self-excommunication" by which the Catholic Church doesn't proactively excommunicate someone based on an ecclesiastical process. Instead, the Catholic Church declares that a member has excommunicated through the act of disobidience.
An example is a recent case of a Catholic Church in Arizona performed an abortion on a woman with a life-threatening illness. The local Catholic Bishop declared the head of the hostital's ethics committee to have sanctioned an unauthorized abortion and excommunicated herself from the Catholic Church.
In a sense, the Catholic Church avoids a condemnatory appearance and places the blame back on the person considered to be the transgressor.
Sort of a "we didn't excommunicate you...you did it to yourself."
Would that approach work and be more publicly acceptable for the LDS Church?
Imagine an LDS Church disciplinary council that does not decide in excommunicating someone for adultery or apostacy. Instead, the decision is that the person was already excommunicated because they did it to themselves. The council is just formalizing a self excommunication.
In such cases, when the Church is accused of being punative or unfair...the answer is that we did nothing of the kind...the person cut themselves off from the Church.