An Evangelical Professor Comes to Defense of LDS

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Sigh.

Is this board worth saving?

Total bummer isn't it?

I fell your sigh.

[Jaybear]

By implication Jaybear, whether you know it or not, you show that if Mormons react violently, then those who would demean our religion would react more carefully and with greater respect.

The lesson you present Jaybear is that violence breeds respect. That as long as Latter-Day Saints are not violent we can continue to see our religion smeared by "well intentioned" parodies. However, if we want resepct and if we want the parodies to stop, well, lets just be violent about it.

I would never advocate such a position, but it appears you have painted yourself in exactly that corner.

Violence breeds fear and caution, not respect.

There is a greater respect for Mormons in this country than for Muslims, in significant part because of the violent Muslim extremist.

[Jeff K.]

Violence breeds fear and caution, not respect.

There is a greater respect for Mormons in this country than for Muslims, in significant part because of the violent Muslim extremist.

Respect is not exclusive of fear and caution. Fear the Lord your God for example.....

The "great respect" for Mormons only lasts so long as Mormons agree with people. When they disagree, being there is no fear of retaliation, temples are grafittied, people lose their jobs, and protests are in front of their temples versus say the AME church.

It is naive to presume that such respect holds true when realities shows it does not. Or do you mean that those who carried out these acts were in your opinion "respectful"?

[Nathair/|\]

Respect is not exclusive of fear and caution. Fear the Lord your God for example.....

The "great respect" for Mormons only lasts so long as Mormons agree with people. When they disagree, being there is no fear of retaliation, temples are grafittied, people lose their jobs, and protests are in front of their temples versus say the AME church.

It is naive to presume that such respect holds true when realities shows it does not. Or do you mean that those who carried out these acts were in your opinion "respectful"?

I have a great deal of healthy respect for rattle snakes, but despite my love of them (hence my board name) I'm not about to pick one up without great need or caution.

[Jeff K.]

That is not what I said, argued or implied.

In fact, the assertion that speech or art is something that is "acceptable" or "unacceptable" if an offensive concept to me.

The point I expressed is that the two examples cited are not comparable.

One was intended to entertain and amuse the other to incite anger and hatred.

One was an expensive, time consuming artistic production involving many creative and talented people, the other was a stunt which required a Koran, a match and lighter fluid.

Your position is not valid. Effort in and of itself is not a qualifier of stunt versus art. In fact there are "stunts" that require a great deal of effort and there is "art" that requires little or no effort. Lets toss that distinction out right now.

[Jaybear]

Your position is not valid. Effort in and of itself is not a qualifier of stunt versus art. In fact there are "stunts" that require a great deal of effort and there is "art" that requires little or no effort. Lets toss that distinction out right now.

Fact: The burning of the Koran was a CHEAP publicity stunt, which led the death of innocent people.

Yes, some stunts are elaborate, and require a great deal of time, talent and creatitivy. If that were the case here, then you would be right. My position would not be valid.

[Jeff K.]

Your situational ethics on the matter is amazing. I have shown you how your qualifier is not valid. And yet you fail to understand it as such.

Your view of "artistry" is somewhat warped into meaning it must be expensive and creative. But then so are stunts. Burning the Quran or not is irrelevant to your qualifiers. You seek to justify Southpark by calling it creative when in fact it is just a cheap publicity stunt made to make money. Since publicity stunts can be both creative and elaborate (as you agreed they can be) your change that one is distinct from the other along those lines is fallacious at best, and more than likely disengenuous if you thought about it.

[Ron Beron]

http://www.washingto...og.html#WeighIn

I think that the authors final statement says it all...."Meanwhile, we do not have to go to vile plays that cause friends pain or go to pastor Jones’ church. This weekend I will go to a good play, attend a loving church, and try to better understand my Mormon neighbor and my Islamic friends." Good post.

[Jaybear]

Your situational ethics on the matter is amazing. I have shown you how your qualifier is not valid. And yet you fail to understand it as such.

What "ethical" position have I taken that offends your sensibilities?

The burning of the Koran by pastor Jones has been universally condemned. The play about Mormons has not.

Apparantly, I am not the only one that views them with a different lens.

Perhaps you can tell me what line of dialogue in the play did you find to be the most offense? Oh, let me guess, you haven't seen the play either.

[Jeff K.]

The burning of the Koran by pastor Jones has been universally condemned. The play about Mormons has not.

Apparantly, I am not the only one that views them with a different lens.

And if a lynch mob wants to hang someone, more power to them. Popularity or the lack thereof does not condone the demeaning of people's religious beliefs. Just because one can stylishly stick a knife into you does not make it any more right than a brute doing the same.

Yes, the belief that somehow the majority actions upon a minority when acclaimed as artistic makes those actions of denigration good does indeed offend me. It should offend most people who worry about minority groups, unless of course your morality is selective and situational.

[Lars Umlaut]

Sigh.

Is this board worth saving?

Nope. Hasn't even been a board worth reading for some time now.

(Yet here I am. LOL)