Three Powerful Books

[Guest]

Religious institutions have the right to assert themselves into the legal process within a pluralistic society. Secularists have the right to do the same thing.

A couple of problematic issues here.

First, you compare religious institutions with "secularists" in the context of legal rights. These are not comparable categories when dealing with concepts like rights. Secularists are not institutionalized but must by default refer to individuals with some common basis of belief. You can't write a letter to "the secularists" and expect to receive a response. It's also bogus to put a halo over legal rights when most issues involving religions complaining about rights involve civil rights. Institutions and individuals have very different claims when it comes to rights.

This in turn affects the meaning of your claim that "religious institutions have the right to assert themselves into the legal process". There is reasonable Supreme Court case precedent that paints clear boundaries on individual religious freedom that preempts the claim religious beliefs override the law. As an individual, you don't get to claim a murder was ok because you were practicing blood atonement necessary for someone to be saved even though it was clearly taught by early church leadership. Once established, the law has to be the law for everyone for there to be a just society. Individuals and institutions are certainly free to weigh in on the debate over the law but that comes with provisions for each category.

What seems to occur with your thinking is the idea religion represents a higher law above the law of the land. You believe, as is your right, this law came from God and therefore applies to everyone. Ok. This idea is held by people with views of what is "gods law" that contradict your own. People believe God has decreed a host of contradictory rules and definitions for what people ought to do. By necessity you are simply asserting you belief should be privileged over that of others and made the law of the land. Not by debate over the merits of the rule itself but by divine right of your belief to a unique status over that of others. Simply asserting an idea is espoused by your God isn't engaging in civic debate. It's attempting to impose a theocratic tyranny over others who do not share your beliefs.

Anyway, it took a while to get here but it wasn't where I thought we'd end up.

It doesn’t surprise me at all that we ended up at this place.

That's cheap of you. I sincerely thought if we were engaging in discussion on certain topics the result might stray a bit but still be related to the topic. According to this, it was never about the OP or other topics that arose. In your mind, it was always about your Manichean worldview? Don't you see why that's messed up? You aren't living honestly or being a genuine person if the above is true.

The founders of our nation suggested that this republic would only continue to exist with a people who believe in a God given set of laws and rights. There is movement to move away from that ideal set up and initiated by the original constitutionalists.

No they didn't, or at least not the way you are portraying it. This is Bill O'Reilly/Glen Beck perversions of history. I guarantee if you spent time reading the writings directly of Madison, Franklin, Jefferson and the like you will find both varied views on this topic and a general belief in fundamental ideals that aren't religious in the sense we are speaking of religion in this thread.

You can start here:
https://books.google.com/books/about/Th ... ead_button

[_honorentheos]

Yeah, more people like Honor is an existential threat. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Well, he may be right about that.

[_Gadianton]

MG forgets that most on this board were LDS for a great portion of their lives, firmly rooted in faith with all kinds of biases and information control from their upbringing. The Church as "true" had a huge head start in the competition of ideas.

"I think the chances of you being wrong in regards to the truth claims of the LDS church are greater than my chances of being wrong because you already have an implicit bias."

This statement would be moronic even if Honor had been born and raised a secular humanist, but since he was born and raised Mormon, it goes from being naïve and dumb observation by a primitive thinker, to a nonsensical one. Lemmie, Honor, Dr. Moore, myself, Philo, Exiled; all in this thread began this life fully indoctrinated and biased toward the LDS church being true.

[_Dr Exiled]

MG forgets that most on this board were LDS for a great portion of their lives, firmly rooted in faith with all kinds of biases and information control from their upbringing. The Church as "true" had a huge head start in the competition of ideas.

"I think the chances of you being wrong in regards to the truth claims of the LDS church are greater than my chances of being wrong because you already have an implicit bias."

This statement would be moronic even if Honor had been born and raised a secular humanist, but since he was born and raised Mormon, it goes from being naïve and dumb observation by a primitive thinker, to a nonsensical one. Lemmie, Honor, Dr. Moore, myself, Philo, Exiled; all in this thread began this life fully indoctrinated and biased toward the LDS church being true.

This is so true. I grew up surrounded by G.A.'s, men I worshiped. I loved playing with the G.A.'s kids in the ward and talking to their wives. They were our heroes. It was tough to realize that they are mere mortals, that they are probably making crap up.

[_Morley]

I’m still laughing that someone really might feel threatened by humanism. I thought that was long dead as a boogeymen. Even *gasp* the secular variety.

I thought we were more sophisticated than that.

[_Res Ipsa]

I think at one time or another we each find ourselves standing up for something. That is, of course, unless you’re a relativist and find that there really isn’t any solid ground to stand on. Then everything is up for grabs.

Believe me, when it comes to one thing or another I’m nuanced. But not everything. And yes, there is an existential war. It’s happening right before our eyes. If you can’t see it, you’ve been suckered.

Yeah, I do believe secular humanism to be an existential threat. It has been for quite a few years now. If Honor considers himself to be a secular humanist, then he is part of that tribe. And I would expect so are you. So you and others of your kind are a threat to the long term cohesive fabric and stability of our society.

I guess we’re all subject to one form of tribal thinking or another, aren’t we?

Regards,
MG

I’m not the one dividing people into friends and enemies. That’s all you. I don’t identify as a secular humanist — that’s you cramming me into a box so that you can can have that enemy you so deeply crave. Your “nuance” is pure affectation. Deep down, you’re nuanced as a sledgehammer.

I don’t need to make up enemies. I don’t need someone to fear and hate. Apparently, you can’t be a happy person without an enemy to hate.

[_Jersey Girl]

I guess we’re all subject to one form of tribal thinking or another, aren’t we?

No.

[_Philo Sofee]

I’m still laughing that someone really might feel threatened by humanism. I thought that was long dead as a boogeymen. Even *gasp* the secular variety.

I thought we were more sophisticated than that.

Well considering we are dealing with (cough) Mormonism and the way it raises its kids to be tattle tails at their college campuses, this should be no surprise.

[_Philo Sofee]

Res Ipsa
I’m not the one dividing people into friends and enemies. That’s all you. I don’t identify as a secular humanist — that’s you cramming me into a box so that you can can have that enemy you so deeply crave. Your “nuance” is pure affectation. Deep down, you’re nuanced as a sledgehammer.

I don’t need to make up enemies. I don’t need someone to fear and hate. Apparently, you can’t be a happy person without an enemy to hate.

A deeply profound point. The fear and paranoia in so much religion, even unnecessarily has led to warped thinking and skewed logic for millenia, which skewing is anchored in their already paranoid and skewed scripture which they imagine is free from taint and problem when it comes to visceral reality. MG is so biased he cannot even see how badly skewed his own world view is... And hence it must needs be that there is an opposition (enemy) in all things in his little mind, or else there is no reality. God has devil, Dr. Peterson has Scratch, Midlgey has Moksha, so MG needs to be a good Mormon and get an enemy. That's where secular humanists come in. Hey, if they are evil to an apostle then MG feels perfectly justified in accepting they are evil in general. Who is he to question an apostle? An apostle of the Holy Jesus Christ lord of the universe?! When an apostle opines, MG snaps to all ears, attention, and belief.

[_Philo Sofee]

MG
And if you’re a secular humanist I think the chances of you being wrong in regards to the truth claims of the LDS church are greater than my chances of being wrong because you already have an implicit bias. But I can understand how, from your point of view as a secular humanist you would believe that the church can’t be true. No God, no true church. Your view has a certain sense of logic to it within the parameters of your restricted thanking. That shouldn’t inhibit me from having a strong opinion that you’re wrong even though you think you’re right.

Ah yes, the Mormon judgment of the world from a bias free perspective. Nothing like first having the bias of their apostasy, and only then saying Mormons are bias free as well as correct because all other churches are de facto wrong because, forsooth, that's what Joseph Smith was told! What MG has utterly failed to grasp is that it was as an LDS apologist that I came to grasp that the truth claims are wrong. I found that out from within the religion, not as an outside secular humanist. My eyes were opened to the astonishing and very uncomfortable fact that my own bias was wrong. I judged everything about the world from within that invisible bias, namely Mormon truth, just like MG does. And I could not see it. From within, ones bias is invisible. It's what makes it so amusing when the self-righteous perverts of religion start trying to shame the world for its sins while dripping with the blood of their own sins. They are so perverted in their bias they imagine that bright red blood will be used to wash their own garments snow white! Ponder how truly impossibly silly that is, and you begin to see why their judgment and knowledge against the world is harmless, so long as we all uphold the complete separation of church and state. If they ever get secular power, they could even make us inject Clorox into our veins in order to clean out diseases in the body.......