Jump to content

Religious Intolerance


Sky

Recommended Posts

Why should there be concern?

This is not comparable to Civil Rights era where Churchs were torched to chase people away, where the law was actively against the members of said church.

Good morning frankenstein... and how are you this morning? Well I hope...

That's true, but IMO, there should be concern regardless if it rises to the level of the Civil Rights era... in my small beach-side community, there have been increased acts of vandalism on schools... we are starting to experience a graffiti problem that we never had previously... I remember how stunned I was a couple of years ago when driving into town I noticed the markings on the side of a bldg., and the sinking feeling it gave me. Being a Californian I remembered the ugliness of graffiti... A real effort has been made by local officials to address the problems with fairly good results.

Vandalism on churches and schools suggests underlying problems and attitudes that can grow until they can become serious, even threatening generally.

So, yes, I do feel concern when these things happen...

GG

Link to comment
I wonder why the news coverage has been so localized and muffled?

Um.... Christian slaughter, terrorist threat of explosives intercepted, world series, Season openers for the NBA, Volcanic ereuptions, Hurricane Igor, Chili mine rescue, 2010 elections, etc, etc.

Link to comment

Why should there be concern?

This is not comparable to Civil Rights era where Churchs were torched to chase people away, where the law was actively against the members of said church.

3 of 4 vandalism of LDS Church building were resolved with in days. There is no connecting with what happened in Wa. and what happened in Utah.

I would be concerned if all 4 events were remained unsolved and there appeared to be a connection.

As for the lack of media attention, I think the good Doctor is just trying to make bigger martyr than is really there.

And the recent attacks were by church members, not some outside group. The article's analysis is poor.

Link to comment

And the recent attacks were by church members, not some outside group. The article's analysis is poor.

Can you show me a source that says the attacks were done by Church members? I tried to find my own sources, but the information I found was sketchy.

I keep hearing that the teens who attacked the church in Pleasant Grove were members, but nobody seems to be able to confirm it. My understanding is that the suspect who vandalized the two churches in South Salt Lake was an excommunicated member. And I didn

Link to comment

If this were a different religious organization, would the reaction be the same?

Very likely, if it were seen as a mostly internal conflict rather than an outside attack. I wonder if your own outrage (and insinuations of bigotry) would be just as great if a couple of Scientology buildings were vandalized or burned by disenchanted members.

Link to comment

Very likely, if it were seen as a mostly internal conflict rather than an outside attack. I wonder if your own outrage (and insinuations of bigotry) would be just as great if a couple of Scientology buildings were vandalized or burned by disenchanted members.

I have my doubts as to whether this is a completely internal conflict. The incidences that I mentioned are not the only ones

Link to comment

Nope. Not more, and not less.

I don't know how much sympathy would assuage your outrage. I, for example, am 100% against vandalism and destruction of private or public property, no matter which property or who does it. I assume that's a commonly held opinion. But it appears you need much more. Do you want to see NY Times headlines? Hour-long specials on Nightline? Congressional hearings?

A simple acknowledgement of religious intolerance, and yes, bigotry - would suffice.

But I

Link to comment

Just for kicks, some wiki-fun regarding "bigotry":

Bigotry

A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices, especially one exhibiting intolerance, irrationality, and animosity toward those of differing beliefs. The predominant usage in modern American English refers to persons hostile to those of differing race, ethnicity, nationality, sexual orientation, various mental disorders, or religion.

The origin of the word bigot and bigoterie (bigotry) in English dates back to at least 1598, via Middle French, and started with the sense of "religious hypocrite". Forms of bigotry may have a related ideology or world views.

Etymology

The exact origin of the word is unknown, but it may have come from the German bei and gott, or the English by God. William Camden wrote that the Normans were first called bigots, when their Duke Rollo, who when receiving Gisla, daughter of King Charles, in marriage, and with her the investiture of the dukedom, refused to kiss the king's foot in token of subjection - unless the king would hold it out for that specific purpose. When being urged to do it by those present, Rollo answered hastily "No, by God", whereupon the King, turning about, called him bigot, which then passed from him to his people. This is quite probably fictional, as Gisla is unknown in Frankish sources. It is true, however, that the French used the term bigot to abuse the Normans.

The twelfth century Anglo-Norman author Wace claimed that bigot was an insult which the French used against the Normans, but it is unclear whether or not this is how it entered the English language.

According to Egon Friedell, "bigot" is of the same root as "Visigoth". In Vulgar Latin, the initial v transformed into b (a phenomenon today encountered in Iberian languages, such as Spanish and Portuguese; visi had truncated into bi in Vulgar Latin (a phenomenon common in French and Portuguese).

Link to comment

There is no basis for this assumption. Repairing the results of these attacks, irrespective of the cause, comes directly from the tithing fund.

Lehi

If they're not insured, they should be. It would be irresponsible not to insure the buildings.

But I still would assume that they are unless presented with evidence to the contrary.

Link to comment

Can you show me a source that says the attacks were done by Church members? I tried to find my own sources, but the information I found was sketchy.

http://connect2utah.com/search-fulltext?nxd_id=114456

http://connect2utah.com/search-fulltext?nxd_id=115576

Also, the broken window in his Colorado church could well have been some pranking kids, a druggie looking for something to sell, etc.

Link to comment

If they're not insured, they should be. It would be irresponsible not to insure the buildings.

But I still would assume that they are unless presented with evidence to the contrary.

The church self-insures their church buildings. In other words, they've determined that with the number of buildings and the cost of insuring them it is cheaper not to insure them and to pay for damages out-of-pocket. Some things are insured in the sense that if a boiler explodes and damages a building there is insurance to cover that.

This is pretty common knowledge.

Link to comment
If they're not insured, they should be. It would be irresponsible not to insure the buildings.

This is also an unwarranted assumption.

The cost of insurance includes a profit margin for the company, as well as a calculation of the probability of the insured property's being damaged or destroyed. This probability is spread over the number of properties so insured. Thus, with enough properties, the calculation approaches certitude.

The Church owns enough properties that the probability of a certain number's being damaged or destroyed is exactly the same as if an insurance company were running the risk. So, the costs of replacing or repairing the damaged buildings is exactly the same whether the Church pays for it or the insurance company does. The difference is that the Church does not have to pay the profit factor in the premium.

So, your assertion, that it is irresponsible of the Church to fail to insure her property is erroneous.

But I still would assume that they are unless presented with evidence to the contrary.

Your assumption is based on incomplete information and limited experience.

Lehi

Link to comment

Also, the broken window in his Colorado church could well have been some pranking kids, a druggie looking for something to sell, etc.

There is a stake center over my back fence. One night a few years ago I heard a crash, and ran out the back door in time to see some kids running away. I met my TBM neighbor out front and we went down to investigate, and found that a brick had been thrown through the church's glass door. The next morning I noticed that another neighbor's mail box had also been smashed.

Our assumption was young hoodlums up to no good, not religious intolerance and bigotry.

Link to comment

The church self-insures their church buildings. In other words, they've determined that with the number of buildings and the cost of insuring them it is cheaper not to insure them and to pay for damages out-of-pocket. Some things are insured in the sense that if a boiler explodes and damages a building there is insurance to cover that.

This is pretty common knowledge.

It's not common knowledge, but thanks for educating me on it.

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...