…and this is a 
Universities are supposed to be places where students are free to think and argue…but too often, if a student says something that contradicts the religious dogma of the institution, it's an excuse to be censored. Here's an example: a Mormon student at BYU wrote a letter for the school newspaper criticizing the LDS position on gay rights while still supporting Mormonism as a religious belief.
It is time for LDS supporters of Prop 8 to be honest about their reasons for supporting the amendment. It's not about adoption rights, or the first amendment, or tradition. These arguments were not found worthy of the standards for finding facts set up by our judicial system. The real reason is that a man who most of us believe is a prophet of God told us to support the amendment. [This is a privately held religious belief that we are using to support legislation that takes away a right from a minority group. If our government were to enact legislation based solely on such beliefs, it would set a dangerous precedent, possibly even more so than allowing a homosexual to marry the person he or she loves.] We must be honest about our motivation, and consider what it means to the delicate balance between our relationship with God and with His children here on earth. Maybe then we will stop thoughtlessly spouting arguments that are offensive to gays and lesbians and indefensible to those not of our faith.
It got pulled. Why? I don't know. It's still crazy pro-mormon gushy baloney, but it is simply saying that everyone should be honest about their motivations.
Oh, wait. I forgot. Honesty is one of those sins in these goofy cults.
Comments
Posted by: daveau
|
September 8, 2010 11:35 AM
What?!?! LDS censors its members?!?!
I like the way this guy thinks.
Posted by: otrame
|
September 8, 2010 11:39 AM
Somewhat off topic and I apologize, but when some religious leaders do something right for a change, I think we should acknowledge it. While waiting in a doctor's office yesterday I saw a press conference on CNN in which a large group of religious leaders from a wide variety of faiths, including Catholic, evangelical Protestant, Jewish, etc. coming down with both feet on the rising tide of anti-Islamic rhetoric, and specifically the hysteria about the proposed mosque for an area two blocks from Ground Zero. It was the evangelical speaker who said "Shame on you."
Now, I am anti-Islamic myself, but no more so than anti-Catholic, anti-evangelical, etc. I wish with all my heart that everyone would wake up some morning and say to themselves, "But that is just silly, how could I have believed all that nonsence?" But as long as there are religious people I want them to be treated with complete equality before the law, along with everyone else.
At least this one time, a bunch of religious leaders stood up and said, "No" to the hatred. It doesn't happen often and I want to praise them for doing it when it does happen.
Posted by: tytalus
|
September 8, 2010 11:45 AM
Possibly?! The twit ranks theocracy as possibly worse than marriage equality?
FEH.
Ironic that even in spite of this he's not mormon enough to survive censorship. I wonder which of these he thinks is worse, now.
OT: Wondering if PZ has heard any noise about the proposed quran-burning by the nutjob xian preacher. I've been waiting for more xians complaining that we can stick a nail in a cracker, but...etc. Maybe he's already brought it up and I missed it.
Posted by: raven
|
September 8, 2010 11:47 AM
BYU is quaint. They periodically have purges of their intellectuals just like the Stalinists and Maoist did.
They don't send them to their Gulag though. That is reserved for their children.
Posted by: Anubis Bloodsin the third
|
September 8, 2010 11:50 AM
#2
And of course we should all buy that?
A group of religious leaders like so, know very well that stones should not be thrown in their own greenhouse because they are all past masters at tossing the dollop.
The irony alone is awesome in its pompousness.
Meanwhile another religious leader intends to burn a shedload of the Koran on the 9/11 anniversary...just to emphasize the point of xian condemnation of hatred!
[url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11223457]xian lurve' revealed....[/url]
Posted by: Anubis Bloodsin the third
|
September 8, 2010 11:53 AM
#5
Excuses linkage failure...should be
Xian lurve' revealed
Posted by: chanson.exmormon
|
September 8, 2010 12:03 PM
The editorial was pretty far from gushingly pro-Mormon. I'm impressed that it got in under the radar the first time (and not at all surprised that it was magically deleted).
He's basically explaining that the commercials and chain emails that helped pass Prop H8 were dishonest -- and that the pro-prop-8 forces know it. If he can translate that into terms that got it published in BYU's Daily Universe, then more power to him!
Posted by: chanson.exmormon
|
September 8, 2010 12:05 PM
p.s. see our discussion of it at Main Street Plaza.
Posted by: otrame
|
September 8, 2010 12:10 PM
Oh, yes, I know about the ugly little Quran burning idea. It was partially in response to that that the press conference was called. And yes, they were, in some cases, quite specific that supporting religious freedom is not so much altruistic as it is necessary to protect their own religious freedom. What is wrong with that? It's just true. I support the right of idiots and hatemongers to publish idiocy and hatemongering, though I despise it, because I want the right to publish what I think of them using as many four letter words as possible.
Yes, they are religious, and I don't agree with the way they approach the world on that front, but they stood up there and said the First Amendment is for everyone, not just Christians and Jews. There is no irony in that. It was just good citizenship and not something that you see all that often from religious leaders, which is why I mentioned it.
You know you really shouldn't paint all of any group of people with the same brush. Not all Christians are John Hagee. Some of them actually try not to be hateful. Admittedly it's the ones who do all the hating that make all the noise, but Christians aren't all that way.
Posted by: Andrew Hall
|
September 8, 2010 12:13 PM
If my adult child (I still consider 18 as an adult) decides to go to a religious school then that's their decision. I'd give them a mountain 'o crap for it but ultimately it's their choice.
http://laughinginpurgatory.blogspot.com/2010/03/assertiveness-training-for-ali.html
Posted by: Eamon Knight
|
September 8, 2010 12:37 PM
@3: It's odd that he ends that way, having started out so well:
[This is a privately held religious belief that we are using to support legislation that takes away a right from a minority group. If our government were to enact legislation based solely on such beliefs, it would set a dangerous precedent, possibly even more so than allowing a homosexual to marry the person he or she loves.]
Since Mormons are a once-persecuted minority, they damn well ought to understand the importance of prtotecting *every* minority's rights, as a matter of prudence and prinicple. There's a reason Jews tend to be secularists (other than a few nutjobs who prefer the strategy of brown-nosing the Christian Right).
Posted by: Lynna, OM
|
September 8, 2010 12:40 PM
Mormons will purge even their best and brightest. Musician, and LDS Church member in über good standing, Peter Danzig, found this out the hard way. The church even kicked out Danzig's wife. Danzig's crime was writing a letter in support of someone else who had objected to the LDS Church's activities in the political arena when it came to fighting gay marriage. Pretty slim excuse for the church authorities to threaten him with excommunication. Danzig and his wife felt like their "family" had kicked them out unfairly. But there's no fighting the narrow minded geriatric doofuses at the top.
Source: http://www.rickross.com/reference/mormon/mormon489.htmlPeter Danzig's letter to the editor of The Tribune published June 14, 2006:
Video that features Peter Danzig speaking about gays and the LDS Church: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4u6AQUHjRg
Peter Danzig tells his story in his own words.
Posted by: Lynna, OM
|
September 8, 2010 12:44 PM
An excerpt from Peter Danzig's blog post (link to complete post is at the end of comment 12):
Posted by: Personal Failure
|
September 8, 2010 12:46 PM
I think he was censored for letting the cat out of the bag.
In case you were wondering why so many Mormon prop 8 blogs popped up all once, it was because a mailing was sent to all the Mormons in California and the surrounding areas instructing them to start blogs, canvas door-to-door, hold up signs at busy intersections, etc. It was specifically stated that this was necessary to remain "in good standing" as a Mormon.
I sincerely wish I had taken a screen capture of this mailing when I had the chance. It was put up on a newly minted Mormon prop 8 blog as a means of exhorting others to follow suit, then the entire blog was pulled down, probably when somebody realized how potentially damaging that could be.
Posted by: BCSteve
|
September 8, 2010 1:08 PM
I'm a student at a Catholic, Jesuit university, so I felt the need to comment. Yes, there are a lot of things about my school that I disagree with. Being gay, liberal, and an atheist, I conflict with pretty much all of the school's politics. But that hasn't stopped me from receiving a good education. I applied here back when I was nominally religious, and I chose to go here because it was where I could receive the best education, despite the leanings of the administration. And for the most part, the school's religion doesn't affect my daily life. There are prayers occasionally, references to God everywhere, and yes, sometimes the administration creates stupid rules (no condoms on campus, pssh). However, I can still be open about my position on religion while disagreeing with the school. So I guess what I'm saying is, don't judge a school based entirely on its religion. Just because a school is run by Catholics doesn't mean all the professors are nutcases as well. Choose a school based on multiple factors: the education you'll receive, the students, etc.
Posted by: Sastra
|
September 8, 2010 1:27 PM
This sounds so familiar. There's all this reassuring talk about tolerance, diversity, acceptance, and so forth -- as long as you keep your views to your personal circle. Bring it into the public square, though, where the idea must be taken seriously -- and the student is now a "militant" student.
Really. So strident of him.
Posted by: Rey Fox, Bird Caller Guy
|
September 8, 2010 1:49 PM
Lynna: Did you get the e-mail I sent you about buying a copy of Backcountry Roads: Idaho?
Posted by: Eamon Knight
|
September 8, 2010 1:49 PM
@9, and at the risk of thread-jacking: I'm kind of ambivalent about the Quran-burning thing. The religious leaders condemning it play the "respect religion" card a little too much. I certainly don't see the Quran as a sacred object any more than I do a communion wafer, and I condemn without qualification those who think the insult to their holy symbols justifies a violent response.
I skimmed the Dove church's website, and (shorn of the specifically religious objections) their complaints about Islam aren't that different from what sources on our side (eg. Sam Harris or Jerry Coyne) have been saying lately. Granted there is a larger current atmosphere of bigotry against Muslims as people, and Islam as Other, but the Dove people at least are not invoking that on their website (not that I automatically trust them, but I can only go by what they actually say). The only questions are: Is burning a Quran the appropriate form of protest? And is the connection to 9/11 legitimate, or inflammatory?
And yes, this probably will endanger the troops -- but surely refraining for that reason is just knuckling under to intimidation by the theo-thugs.
The above is in the nature of scattered thoughts, rather than a thesis -- feel free to help me unpeel this onion.
Posted by: Anubis Bloodsin the third
|
September 8, 2010 2:22 PM
#9
Please be assured my spleen is only vented at, and meant for the truly holy obnoxious.
The fundamentalists and creationist clowns that live in fairyland on a full time basis.
The ones that demand lies and mythology should be taught in science, and especially for the ones that can take no criticism and react with hysterical draconian toxic revenge and attempt to circumvent their own countries constitution when it suits.
The same ones that bleat about intolerance and hatred of jeebus when they are the ones being intolerant and hateful, they know who they are.
But by the same token I cannot respect religious leaders that spout all truth and light in public and do nothing about the sheer calculated criminality of their own followers of a myth just because they are religious for the same delusion...apparently!
The likes of this book burning buffoon that seems intent on proving that xianity is only as religious as you want it to be personally, whether or not it is insulting and is anything except capable of the respect that they ask for actually demand from everyone else other religious or atheist alike.
There is absolutely no reason in the 21st century for such ignorance...it is a disgrace to humanity.
I am sure there are good people who are Christian, no doubt.
One would like to think the majority, but that I do doubt.
Posted by: bryanpstevens
|
September 8, 2010 2:43 PM
No offense, but when you use language like "crazy pro-mormon gushy baloney" and "goofy cults" you undermine any credibility you may have had. Instead of resorting to ad hominem to make your arguments, use logic. I expect more from the faculty of the U of MN.
Posted by: 朴競花/박경화 (Gyeong Hwa)
|
September 8, 2010 2:47 PM
Concern troll is concern.
and also missed the argument. PZ said BYU is baloney because it doesn't believe:
Posted by: raven
|
September 8, 2010 2:51 PM
No he doesn't. PZ is being polite. I prefer fundie death cult xians myself or more accurately, Mind Control brainwashing cults.
Naw. You are just a random religious kook whining because we called you a random religious kook who whines
BTW, I don't think I'm joining your horrible little cult anytime soon so stop with the kiddie missionaries.
Posted by: Katharine
|
September 8, 2010 2:54 PM
What the fuck is it with trolls who have thin skins?
Posted by: steve
|
September 8, 2010 3:02 PM
Last time I checked, mormonism is an ideology and cults are organizations, they are not people and not entitled to respect.
And there is plenty of evidence to support the crazy, gushy baloney and goofy claims.
Posted by: 朴競花/박경화 (Gyeong Hwa)
|
September 8, 2010 3:04 PM
It's the body lotion. It makes the skin soft, smooth, and oh so susceptible to tone. :P
Posted by: nejishiki
|
September 8, 2010 3:05 PM
Burning the quran on 9/11 is basically blaming all muslims for 9/11. Better would be to burn the works of extremist islamic theologians instead, or works that support terrorism. Or not start with book burning at all, because of its Godwin-ous history. Also, I'm not sure about the idea of an 'appropriate' protest. There are tactically wise and unwise forms of peaceful protest, that is it. This church is declaring a hatred of islam, even if they deny that they hate all people who call themselves muslims. If they don't actually hate islam, then they are being tactically unwise. If they do hate it, they have chosen one of the best possible methods of expressing it. Also, 'legitimite' vs. 'inflamitory' is a false dichotomy. It could easily be both.Posted by: truthspeaker
|
September 8, 2010 3:27 PM
Why? Those seem like good descriptive terms to me.
Or are you of the curious school of thought that says that it's never OK to say anything bad about anyone? It's an attitude I've encountered more often lately.
Posted by: truthspeaker
|
September 8, 2010 3:30 PM
In addition, Christians condemning Islam for violence is a serious case of the pot calling the kettle black. Christians the Americas only gave up forcible conversion within the last 100 years, and Europe only a a short time before that.
Posted by: greg.bourke0
|
September 8, 2010 3:33 PM
Dune quote of the day:
"I must admit, against all better judgement, I like this..." Mormon.
Posted by: truthspeaker
|
September 8, 2010 3:34 PM
To my mind, blaming all of Islam for 9/11 is inappropriate. Certainly the hijackers and the people who funded and planned the operation were motivated by Wahhabist Islam, and it's certainly true that Wahhabist Islam is more closely related to the historical beliefs and practices of Islam than most other extant varieties, just as fundamentalist Christianity has more in common with traditional Christianity than the more modern, "liberal" versions. But saying Islam inevitably leads to attacks like 9/11 is overly simplistic.
Posted by: rlrrlrll
|
September 8, 2010 3:51 PM
Another reason you shouldn't attend a religiously-affiliated university
If the university requires students or faculty to adhere to statement of faith, then that university isn't worth attending, otherwise a religiously-affiliated university isn't too different than a secular university.
Posted by: truthspeaker
|
September 8, 2010 4:04 PM
The college I went to was affiliated with the Presbyterian faith, but there was no statement of faith, no mandatory chapel attendance, and no rules against condoms or sleeping over. Since I graduated they introduced on-campus housing for unmarried opposite-sex couples.
They have, however, clamped down on underage drinking, but that was for legal, not religious, reasons.
Posted by: SteveM
|
September 8, 2010 4:15 PM
bryan wrote:
"Your argument is stupid": not ad hominem
"You are stupid therefore you are wrong": ad hominem
"You are wrong, therefore you are stupid": not ad hominem
learn the difference, dimwit.
Posted by: melissa.b.elliott
|
September 8, 2010 4:16 PM
@15 bcsteve
Sadly, I've never heard one good thing about the educational quality of BYU, including from graduates.
So far as I can tell, it is literally just a four-year-long singles party for future goddesses looking for a sponsor future god.
Posted by: Eamon Knight
|
September 8, 2010 4:20 PM
@30: Absolutely, and I think Jerry Coyne was way off-base the other week to imply that (too lazy to look up the post right now). To a first approximation, any religion is what its adherents make of it; de facto Islam (like Christianity, and Judaism, and Hinduism, etc, etc) is an evolving and ramifying set of traditions. I don't grant that any of those strands of thought are "correct" by any meaningful standard, but some of them are arguably closer to the historical roots, and to more likely interpretations of the respective Holy Book, than others. So perhaps that makes some religions more vulnerable to being twisted in pernicious directions (does the Quran have any equivalent to the pacifist theme found in Jesus' teachings?) Certainly modern Islam (averaged over the whole world) stands closer to the "barbarism" end of the scale than does modern Christianity. But that does not license broad-brush blaming of the whole.
We need to be careful: legitimate criticism of Islam (either of the more barbarous practices specifically, or as part of a more general critique of religion) can easily provide cover for plain bigotry against, in the same way as legitimate criticism of Israeli policy can provide cover for antisemitism.
Posted by: Eamon Knight
|
September 8, 2010 4:23 PM
Feh, that should read: "...plain bigotry against Muslims as Scarey Furriners..." (or something like that).
Posted by: Lynna, OM
|
September 8, 2010 4:26 PM
Rey @17
Yes, indeed I did. And I replied. You didn't receive my reply?I can try again.
The email I sent to you was not bounced back, no failure or error messages. Odd.
Posted by: Lynna, OM
|
September 8, 2010 4:48 PM
Sastra @16
Scott Trotter is either lying or repeating the party line as given to him by the General Authority (or perhaps both). It's plain that there is not room in the LDS Church for honest disagreement. I repeat this quote from Peter Danzig: Peter's wife, Mary, also had an honest disagreement with the LDS Church. Both Peter and Mary were pressured for months to write retractions and to make public statements that agreed with LDSteachingslies about homosexuality. They refused and they suffered for it. In the end, they were given the choice of excommunication or leaving the church. That doesn't add up in any way to tolerance for honest disagreement regarding Church positions.Translating Scott Trotter, one gets something like this, "Feel free to disagree, but if you do we will consider you to be dishonest and in open opposition to the Church or its leaders. And we will discipline, coerce and otherwise psychologically torture you."
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
September 8, 2010 5:03 PM
The Mormons are not the folks to be ranting about "traditional marriage." Joseph Smith had 34 wives. His bestest buddy and successor as "prophet, seer, and revelator", Brigham Young, had 55 wives. Whenever Smith or Young wanted a new bedwarmer, they got a revelation from "Heavenly Father" that X was suitable for fucking.
Posted by: mattheath
|
September 8, 2010 6:07 PM
Aren't all three of those things rather common within the Jesuit order?Posted by: mel.unique
|
September 8, 2010 6:21 PM
@34 melissa.b.elliott
Sadly, I've never heard one good thing about the educational quality of BYU, including from graduates.
I graduated from BYU with a Computer Science BS back in '90, with fair-to-middlin' grades.
I managed to do that without learning ONE THING about databases.
Judge that how you will.
Posted by: melissa.b.elliott
|
September 8, 2010 6:37 PM
Mel.unique
Wow, my degree is computer science too! I'd like to think I know about databases though- my indie game side-project is backed by sqlite.
Technically, Databases was an elective at my uni, but the CS program is set up so you pretty much have to take all the electives but one. I took the extra one because I desperately hated general electives!
Posted by: Lynna, OM
|
September 8, 2010 6:42 PM
BYU manages to provide a questionable excuse for an education to students who don't attend the university. Their Distance Learning program is notorious for providing athletes with high grade point averages, and a small percentage of those athlete-students have also been caught up in cheating scams.
[note that I have truncated the list, and that a commenter corrected the original post with updated info regarding NCAA-approved courses.]
Source: http://chronicle.com/blogPost/My-Favorite-BYU-Correspondence/24322/
Commenter:
The correspondence course program for high school students recently took a hit:
Posted by: truthspeaker
|
September 8, 2010 6:45 PM
Even if she was married to someone else at the time.
It's chilling how much like a modern cult early Mormonism was. If David Koresh hadn't been killed his cult could have turned into a major religion in a 100 years. Who knows what will happen when Michael Travasser gets out of jail?
Posted by: MadScientist
|
September 8, 2010 7:01 PM
Since the LDS *is* using its religious position to direct votes, it should immediately be removed from various government registers and taxed in arrears. And yet I won't hold my breath waiting for that to happen.
Ah, Lying For Brigham Young - or whoever the present pretentious prophet is. (I blame the goddamned mormons for causing that alliteration).
Posted by: MadScientist
|
September 8, 2010 7:06 PM
@Anubis #5: I think that one's pretty funny - it's a small boost to sales for the Koran so it's not bad for the economy. I encourage the muslims to burn mountains of bibles (you can get them from the Giddy-uns if you're cheap) and even burn some flags if they feel like it. If they all had competitions to burn religious texts rather than killing eachother, everyone will be happy.
Posted by: Lynna, OM
|
September 8, 2010 7:10 PM
More detail on the problems with BYU's Distance Learning program:
Despite all this negative news, I wouldn't make a blanket statement that BYU courses are below par. There are both good and questionable course offerings, and both good and questionable professors. Here's an example of science-based truth that was sent to the Utah Legislature by BYU professors:
As might be expected, a lot of mormons accused the BYU professors defending AGW as having taken a political stance. BYU professors and students who argue for gay marriage (or at least for the LDS Church taking a hands-off approach to the issue) are also accused of having taken a political stance. In other words, the science doesn't mean shit to them.
Posted by: Lynna, OM
|
September 8, 2010 7:25 PM
Interestingly, the mormon head honchos have recently removed a lot of Brigham Young material from the portion of lds.org that is supposed to be a study guide for church members to read about and study the Prophets.Brigham Young said some embarrassing things. A few examples: comparing getting a new wife to buying a cow, saying that dark-skinned people would never be allowed into the Priesthood, preaching the necessity of blood atonement to gain forgiveness for some sins, declaring polygamy to be an eternal prerequisite for the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom, and noting that love between men was superior to man's love for women.
The latest tactic of LDS Corporation is not to study and remember such embarrassing bits of mormon history, but to bury them and hope that church members forget them.
Posted by: natural cynic
|
September 8, 2010 7:56 PM
MadScientist 46
Why burn them? Why not bury them? We all need to think of the environment and sequester carbon, not let it loose into the atmosphere ;}
Posted by: Timberwoof
|
September 8, 2010 9:30 PM
Is the Mormon Church a cult? Let's use the ABCDEF ( http://www.neopagan.net/ABCDEF.html ) to evaluate the possibility. (I invite you to read the web site for content; Bonewits makes a good case for his Cult Danger Evaluation Frame.)
The LDS are fair-to-middling on a lot of these measures. So far, they haven't shown much isolation, surrender of will or violence, but on most of the other indicators, they sure twitch significantly.
(The ABCDEF is useful to evaluate an organization. Try it. Are we a cult?)
Posted by: Logic H. Science!
|
September 8, 2010 10:44 PM
Dunno, PZ, religious universities can be beneficial. I was just a wishy-washy agnostic until I went to Baylor. Even though I grew up surrounded by crazy evangelicals (and decided at about the age of 4 that their version of God sounded like an asshole), it wasn't until I got really immersed into the brainwashing insanity that I went full-on atheist. I think it was freshman orientation that did it - one night we had to all sit around talking about our relationship with God (while I managed to not take a turn) and one girl told this story about how she'd always tried to convert her Jewish friend in high school. Her friend died in a car accident, and she was really upset that she'd gone to Hell as a non-believer, but then convinced herself that her friend's dying thought must have been to accept Jesus so she was in heaven after all. Everyone else thought this was a wonderful story, and I thought it was the most heartless bitchy delusion I'd ever heard in my life. No more God for me!!
Plus it was always fun when random people stopped me to ask me to pray with them to see the look of horror when I told them I didn't believe in God. Guess I'm one of those dickish atheists.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/gfhg9nZ_1oJzRCtLKnGjfFZi9Cg0#2b1f4
|
September 9, 2010 12:23 AM
I'm a former Mormon missionary who got kicked out of the mission early for writing a letter to the mission president asking honest questions about practices that were troubling me.
This is not a church that values honest inquiry, but then again, what church does?
On the bright side, as a result it didn't take (that) long for me to get out of religion altogether. Were it not for my experience is a Mormon missionary, I'd probably still be paying ten percent of my income to this Church.
Another big "something's wrong in paradise" factor for me was the endowment ceremony in the Mormon temple. Something about all those people in leafy aprons and baker's hats standing around an altar while raising and lowering their hands to the chant of "Pay, lay, ale" made me stop and think.
Posted by: dormin5
|
September 9, 2010 3:54 AM
I have lived in Utah for 18 years of my life, with 6 of those years in Utah County, and I can say from personal experience that this type of action from happy valley university does not surprise me at all. While many people who are LDS are fine people, an even larger majority in this state have been completely brainwashed by their religion and family members who so stringently do whatever the church says. Religious Universities destroy the minds of young people and in the case of BYU convince them the LDS church is all knowing and that their only goal in life is to go on a mission/ meet a man who went on a mission, get married, procreate as much as possible, and teach their kids the same thing.
With that said it is refreshing to see that some students and church members are beginning to rise up and challenge the craziest aspects of their religion. This is a good sign of progress for those within the church beginning to escape their parents and the churches control on their ability to think.
Posted by: dormin5
|
September 9, 2010 3:57 AM
I have lived in Utah for 18 years of my life, with 6 of those years in Utah County, and I can say from personal experience that this type of action from "happy valley university" (BYU) does not surprise me at all. While many people who are LDS are fine people, an even larger majority in this state have been completely brainwashed by their religion and family members who so stringently do whatever the church says.
With that said it is refreshing to see that some students are beginning to rise up and challenge the craziest aspects of their religion. This is a good sign of progress that those within the church are beginning to escape their parents and the churches control on their ability to think.
Posted by: dormin5
|
September 9, 2010 4:00 AM
sorry for the double post PZ. Feel free to delete one.
Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist
|
September 9, 2010 11:00 AM
@50
FAIR TO MIDDLING? Are you fucking kidding me? Low on secrecy and isolation, YOU CLAIMED AN ENTIRE STATE! Your rites had proclamations to a blood feud! Your priests claim the power to READ YOUR MIND AND KNOW WHEN YOU ARE LYING, and punish any disagreement with the mormon line. You are required to give up TWO years of your life in sequestered isolation living in a mormon compound.
Yes, yes it is a cult.
Posted by: Shala
|
September 9, 2010 11:06 AM
While many people who are LDS are fine people
It may be just Canada, but oddly enough, I've never in my life met an LDS member who wasn't a slimeball.
Posted by: Sliver of Silver
|
September 9, 2010 2:18 PM
@BCSteve #15
The boyfriend and I went to the same Catholic university(Pontifical, Royal and Catholic is part of it's official name). The theology subjects were ok as long as you didn't speak back and ask any questions. In the case of my boyfriend though, the professor flunked him because he was "questioning the faith" (translation: asking questions about the existence of God that the professor couldn't deal with because he couldn't prove there was one). I was ever so glad that the college I transferred to didn't have theology subjects, and was instead replaced by Ethics and Social Values.
Posted by: doug
|
September 15, 2010 1:14 AM
I am intrigued. It seems this boils down, not to a stance on gay marriage, but on the difference between an election and a trial. Your post, and the letter, are both assuming that a trial is about governance rather than law. That seems to be a common assumption today as judges seem to enjoy expressing contrary opinions about governance. Governance, to quote the Book of Mormon, amongst many other good sources, is by the “voice of the people”. Many trials seem to be about the unfairness of that governance and often constrain those choices, but as set up in the constitution that we all are looking to, the voice of the people, and that of their representatives trump. So the outcome is being closely watched. But back to the letter. It asserts that not using election rhetoric in a court room is an admission of guilt. It asserts that a lack of logic (as perceived by opponents) proves error. The “voice of the people” is not required to be logical. It is required to be constitutional, an item still being ruled on, and it is required to meet other rules for appearing on the ballot, campaigning, and implementing. But nowhere is there a logic test. The fact that most ballot issues have two sides guarantees that one side or the other will be able to say it lacks logic. As a Prop 13 supporter when it was on the ballot, I am aware of many that even now rue the day the “voice of the people” spoke. Is it the real root of problems now. Later, as a resident of Nevada, I was surprised to see the oddity of legalized prostitution, but only in certain counties. The representatives of the “voice of the people” had spoken. I found it quite illogical. Can you imagine the rhetoric if that was on the ballot? The winning arguments (regardless of which side you think would win) could not be presented in court as constitutional arguments. The moral issues, the public health issues, the employment issues all are a matter of choice and the voters could choose either side (and have). What of these speaks to constitutionality?
No, the letter writer, and all who hold it up as a “gotcha”, are wishing for something they don’t have, the truth and an election win. The “voice of the people” did not choose iniquity. They have in the past and they will again. But they didn’t this time.
Posted by: chanson.exmormon
|
September 17, 2010 7:33 AM
The cow remark was by Heber C. Kimball.