Jeff K. Posted January 10, 2012 Posted January 10, 2012 What is the difference between a little bigotry and hatred, and a large bigotry and hatred other than the damage that occurs?
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted January 10, 2012 Author Posted January 10, 2012 What is the difference between a little bigotry and hatred, and a large bigotry and hatred other than the damage that occurs?The one who is hated?
Jeff K. Posted January 10, 2012 Posted January 10, 2012 Jeff and stormrider neither shows socially acceptable. 22% without knowing sample size and other demographics is hardly "social acceptance"And some article claims open season that article does not prove open season or social acceptance.I assert that some of the claims of social acceptance are a persecution complex weakly founded in in conclusive data.Actually it does. Let me know when a play making fun of Mohammed and Islam is soically acceptable or perhaps a play making fun of Jews in a deathcamp are common fodder and win awards by the establishment, and then tell me we shouldn't worry about it. It seems that some might turn away from almost anything bad, as long as, of course, that same bigotry and hatred isn't turned against them.
frankenstein Posted January 10, 2012 Posted January 10, 2012 If we the LDS are going to whail and moan about "social acceptance" of persecution we the LDS better be able to prove it.No LDS persons has proving a civil rights violation, claiming the violation occured due to being Morm So if we LDS are going to make quite serious claims about rights violations and such, then where is the proof.
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted January 10, 2012 Author Posted January 10, 2012 If we the LDS are going to whail and moan about "social acceptance" of persecution we the LDS better be able to prove it.No LDS persons has proving a civil rights violation, claiming the violation occured due to being Morm So if we LDS are going to make quite serious claims about rights violations and such, then where is the proof.Up until the 1900's; what "Civil Rights"?
Jeff K. Posted January 10, 2012 Posted January 10, 2012 If we the LDS are going to whail and moan about "social acceptance" of persecution we the LDS better be able to prove it.No LDS persons has proving a civil rights violation, claiming the violation occured due to being Morm So if we LDS are going to make quite serious claims about rights violations and such, then where is the proof.So a little hatred and bigotry is acceptable? That any complaint on the matter is a whail and a moan regarding social acceptance? Interesting. I hope you never become the target of a "little hatred and bigotry". Perhaps when it occurs to someone personally it becomes much bigger and their whailing and moaning suddenly isn't, but rather a call for justice?Do I see the shoots of a double standard tree rising from the ashes of logic?
Nathair/|\ Posted January 10, 2012 Posted January 10, 2012 For what it's worth, a sign that it's getting less acceptable to bash Mormons:A top aide to Newt Gingrich is out of a job after he made disparaging comments about the Mormon faith.Last night, the Simpsons writers made fun of Ned Flanders for not caring who the GOP nominee was "as long as it's not a Mormon."
BCSpace Posted January 11, 2012 Posted January 11, 2012 I would be worried if we did not have this opposition; so I welcome it and the opportunity it brings for us to stand up and stand out. I do worry that if we ask others not to judge us, however unjustly, we are also essentially asking society to not judge at all which the scriptures are against. We must careful tend the idea of judgement and discrimination between good and evil lest the battle be fully lost. So yes, I am all for people applying their own religious tests to candidates as politics and religion (or lack thereof) are completely and absolutely inseparable.
Sky Posted January 11, 2012 Posted January 11, 2012 I would be worried if we did not have this opposition; so I welcome it and the opportunity it brings for us to stand up and stand out. I do worry that if we ask others not to judge us, however unjustly, we are also essentially asking society to not judge at all which the scriptures are against. We must careful tend the idea of judgement and discrimination between good and evil lest the battle be fully lost. So yes, I am all for people applying their own religious tests to candidates as politics and religion (or lack thereof) are completely and absolutely inseparable.So you don't agree with article 6 of the United States Constitution saying that no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States?
LeSellers Posted January 11, 2012 Posted January 11, 2012 So you don't agree with article 6 of the United States Constitution saying that no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States?Can't speak for BCSpace, but I fully agree with it, as the Founders meant it, which is not the way you seem to be interpreting it.It is a restriction on the federal government (not on the people who vote) as to who can hold office, not on who one may vote for.It stems from the "religious test" in England that required all holding office to swear they accepted the Trinity and rejected the Catholic Eucharist.Lehi
Jeff K. Posted January 11, 2012 Posted January 11, 2012 The Constitution requires us to compartmentalize. In other words we can indeed argue about religion or discuss it, but we "should" not hold religion as a test for office. This was much more crucial then because you had founding fathers like John Jay who felt that Catholics should not be given the right to vote since their allegiance resided in the Papal States in what was geographically central Italy (there was no Italian nation until the next century and central Italy was controlled by the Catholic Church). So it was more immediately necessary in those days to place that clause in the Articles.The question is whether or not you can filter a personal influence of a religious test. It is possible that you can significantly reduce it. I know LDS democrats who would love to vote for Harry Reid but not Mitt Romney, in that religious influence plays no part since religion as a divisive issue has been removed. However, when differences in religion exist, I think it will be impossible to remove the influence of religion (call it a mental religious test). Religions are then obligated to inform and reassure (as is the candidate) that the overriding decision making capability is done by response to constituents and reason within the framework of the political nature, and not religion. So the next level concerned is not religious testing but moral perspective, to see if they are congruent. As one infamous statement said... "I would rather vote for a non christian who acted like a christian, than a christian who did not live as he should believe" (or something to that sort). Moran affiliation can be important, one reason so many evangelicals broke for Santorum instead of Perry in Iowa. Is it (moral affinity) still a religious test?I would like to note that in business (generally), if you save a firm, no one cares what your religion is. Its all good as long as the firm or factory shows profitability and jobs are saved or even expanded upon. In that sense politics is less pragmatic. I have fired incompetent people who also attended my ward, and have promoted people who did not like my religion but nevertheless performed well and respected my position. The realm of religion can be somewhat separated from what we do, but it cannot be denied that religions (or if you will belief systems) do not influence what we do.Stating you should not vote for a Mormon is wrong, however asking how much influence the church has on a Mormon's decision making may not be going to far since it comes down to whether or not you can trust the word of the person you ask that question to. Harry Reid does not seem to have that problem, but Harry Reid is also the example used to show the church does not interfere and is not a driver in the decision we make politically, only the decisions we make morally and personally.
Kemara Posted January 11, 2012 Posted January 11, 2012 (edited) I think I answered your question already.You did? You might have hidden the answer somewhere because it is nowhere on this thread. Let me sum up what you didn’t answer:You stated: I guess I have a different definition of persecution verses annoying remarks prejudice, and ignorant statements. Because yeah, I definitely see a difference between extermination, lynchings, murders, rape etc.Your position is that there is a definite difference between persecution and actions that are just annoying. I am asking you for your definitive qualification and/or quantification. What is the magic mark that separates persecution from a bit of annoyance?Yes there is prejudice and bigotry by some against the Mormon church.Which by your interpretation is annoying and should not be considered persecution, but you offer no logical support for this position. Again what is the magic mark that separates prejudice and bigotry from persecution?But if you are going to take bigoted remarks against the church as some kind of fulfillment of prophesy that in the latter-days the saints will be persecuted, then you would have to also include Jews, blacks, Catholics Muslims etc as being Gods chosen people.You are really not thinking this through very well. First, if there is a prophecy about the church being persecuted in the latter-days, fulfillment of said prophecy does not require the inclusion of all other persecuted groups. Second, your statement is made of Straw, when did I ever take this position?Otherwise there is nothing UNIQUE to bigotry against Mormons that isn't experienced by other minorities throughout the world. Does that make it right? Of course not.Another Strawman argument, who is arguing that bigotry is unique to Mormons? Not me. Does bigotry have to be unique in order for it to qualify as persecution? Is that your magic mark? Are you really trying to make a case that Mormons are in danger of being lynched?? And that if that happened, there would be no outrage by the American people???Are you really trying to make the case that I made the case that Mormons are in danger of being lynched and that if it happened there would be no outrage by the American people? Yet another Strawman. When is the line crossed between annoying behavior and persecution, is lynching your magic mark? Edited January 11, 2012 by Kemara 1
blackstrap Posted January 12, 2012 Posted January 12, 2012 Perhaps there is an example with the use of the terms, sexual assault, sexual interference,and sexual harassment.These are all illegal,but there is a significant difference in the punishments assessed.Society somehow thinks there is a difference.So too with persecution.The overweight can feel persecuted if they are looked at with disgust,or if they are required to buy an extra seat on a plane, or if they are subjected to snide remarks. That is one level of persecution. If they were afraid to leave the house because they would be beaten or killed on sight,that is clearly several orders of magnitude greater persecution. We,as Christians,may be required to turn the other cheek to the first levels.Even God does not suggest we put up with the other types.
california boy Posted January 12, 2012 Posted January 12, 2012 You did? You might have hidden the answer somewhere because it is nowhere on this thread. Let me sum up what you didn’t answer: You stated: Your position is that there is a definite difference between persecution and actions that are just annoying. I am asking you for your definitive qualification and/or quantification. What is the magic mark that separates persecution from a bit of annoyance? Which by your interpretation is annoying and should not be considered persecution, but you offer no logical support for this position. Again what is the magic mark that separates prejudice and bigotry from persecution? You are really not thinking this through very well. First, if there is a prophecy about the church being persecuted in the latter-days, fulfillment of said prophecy does not require the inclusion of all other persecuted groups. Second, your statement is made of Straw, when did I ever take this position? Another Strawman argument, who is arguing that bigotry is unique to Mormons? Not me. Does bigotry have to be unique in order for it to qualify as persecution? Is that your magic mark? Are you really trying to make the case that I made the case that Mormons are in danger of being lynched and that if it happened there would be no outrage by the American people? Yet another Strawman. When is the line crossed between annoying behavior and persecution, is lynching your magic mark?Whatever. Yawn. If you think Mormons are persecuted by bigoted remarks ignorant people make, then knock yourself out. I am only pointing out that bigoted remarks is a common condition amongst all minorities and not a sign that there is some extra persecution of Mormons. But hey, call anything you don't want to agree with a strawman argument and plow ahead. I will cheer you on.
selek1 Posted January 12, 2012 Posted January 12, 2012 (edited) Whatever. Yawn. If you think Mormons are persecuted by bigoted remarks ignorant people make, then knock yourself out. If bigoted and prejudicial comments are not one form of persecution, then how else would you define "persection"?Where do you draw the line? I am only pointing out that bigoted remarks is a common condition amongst all minorities and not a sign that there is some extra persecution of Mormons. And therein lies the strawman.You are attacking an argument that we have not offered (in an attempt to avoid answering those which we have offered).Once again (so that you cannot feign ignorance) no one here has claimed that others aren't also persecuted.The fact that others are persecuted does not negate the fact that Mormons are persecuted.And "everybody does it" loses its effectiveness as a rationale right around the same time most people learn to ride a two-wheeler. We find it fascinating that you are so quick to dismiss and disregard persecution aimed at Mormons and wish to know upon on what basis you justify ignoring such acts of bigotry and intolerance.We wish to know where (and why) you draw the line between mere "annoyance" and insuperable "persecution".We also know that you've been asked this question at least three times- and have assiduously (or perhaps desperately) dodged that question an equal number of times.You posture yourself as a champion of conscience and liberty (at least for those who share your ideology)- and so we are entitled to ask: Where- precisely- is your low-water mark?Where do you draw the line between mere "annoyance" and persecution? Edited January 12, 2012 by selek1 1
Kemara Posted January 12, 2012 Posted January 12, 2012 Whatever. Yawn....An excellent well reasoned logical respone. Bravo, well done!Your refusal to, yet again, answer a very simple question and your appeal to another pathetic Strawman says all that needs to be said. It is clear that even you realise that your position is untenable and just plain dumb. 2
Kemara Posted January 12, 2012 Posted January 12, 2012 We wish to know where (and why) you draw the line between mere "annoyance" and insuperable "persecution".After being so easily and roundly debunked I imagine cali boy is feeling a little annoyed about now. 3
Jeff K. Posted January 12, 2012 Posted January 12, 2012 Some people will contenance any bigotry and hatred, as long as it's their kind of bigotry and hatred. 1
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted January 12, 2012 Author Posted January 12, 2012 Some people will contenance any bigotry and hatred, as long as it's their kind of bigotry and hatred.Amen; another condition of the human experience.
zerinus Posted January 12, 2012 Posted January 12, 2012 I approach this topic with all sincerity. The scriptures are clear with the way the world views believers in God and all faiths endure this burden. We know from the Bible that some “will kill us (believers) and think they do God a favor”. From Latter-day Saints “Standard Works”, it is almost a point of doctrine that we will be hated and persecuted for our faith…for our belief in the Book of Mormon. It does not matter if you think Joseph Smith is a Prophet, this is one thing he knew and got correctly in the Book of Mormon as well as his own writings. His very murder and the rape and murder of many others show, that if nothing else, he understood his fellow men very well. Mormons have been robbed, beaten and, imprisoned just as Christians of old.I have had prejudicial remarks and actions taken against me personally. Once while my family was at Church for my Father-in-law’s funeral, the minister (in the old Southern tradition of loud sermons) pointed at my family yelling concerning our beliefs during his sermon. When my Mother-in-law asked me to pray at the funeral home prior to leaving for the Church, my brother and sister-in-law walked out in a fit of anger. Our Ward building was broken into once and littered with anti-Mormon pamphlets. I have been open confronted by people when they hear I am LDS with extreme hatred; one accruing this weekend.To even mention this causes people to become angry and seeking to belittle us by calling us whiners and play the persecution card. In LDS belief it will be this hatred of the world that will cause us to “flee unto Zion”. Our leaders have warned of this for two centuries now. The other day while reading a thread on; “What would you do if a Mormon were elected President? One of the posters said he would rather be dead than have a Mormon in office…others warning that he (whatever Mormon elected) would think he was a God, because we are all taught “we are gods”…that was Christ who taught this in the Bible…certainly odd.So it would seem that Joseph got a bulls-eye here…it is a fashionable, acceptable hatred and prejudice in America today.I think you are taking too gloomy and pessimistic look at things. These are the exceptions rather than the rule. You are blowing them out of proportion. The Church is less persecuted and more tolerated and respected today than at any time in its history. I think that that trend will continue.Edit to add:I did not pose this question before so I am adding it for those who may yet comment…Why does pointing out what we as Mormons have and do experience anger so many? Also why do so many have the need to compare out suffering with others who have suffered?Not sure it is quite as you present it to be. It is more an embarrassment rather than anger. They know it is wrong and they are encouraging or perpetrating it, therefore they are embarrassed to be exposed by it.
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted January 12, 2012 Author Posted January 12, 2012 (edited) I think you are taking too gloomy and pessimistic look at things. These are the exceptions rather than the rule. You are blowing them out of proportion. The Church is less persecuted and more tolerated and respected today than at any time in its history. I think that that trend will continue.Not sure it is quite as you present it to be. It is more an embarrassment rather than anger. They know it is wrong and they are encouraging or perpetrating it, therefore they are embarrassed to be exposed by it.I know (and I understand) that some see it this way. But if we are to believe in Prophets in any of the Standard works, as well as comments by Latter-day Saint ones...this all will come to pass.As to you second comment...I have seen and experienced this anger and mocking many times. Again my "perspective" is all that I am qualified to represent. Edited January 12, 2012 by Bill “Papa” Lee
california boy Posted January 12, 2012 Posted January 12, 2012 (edited) An excellent well reasoned logical respone. Bravo, well done! Your refusal to, yet again, answer a very simple question and your appeal to another pathetic Strawman says all that needs to be said. It is clear that even you realise that your position is untenable and just plain dumb.You happen to WANT to beleive that the church is persecuted today. So you choose to point to bigoted and ignorant statements as your sole proof that the church is under persecution in fulfillment of prophesy. Hey like I said, if you want to use bigotry as a divine sign that the church is fulfilling its predestined position then like I said, knock yourself out. Sure you can make a case that bigotry is persecution. What you can't do is make a case that it is some kind of divine fulfillment of prophesy as a sign of the end of days. What I have said is it is TYPICAL of any religious or other kind of minority in this country to have bigoted remarks hurled at them by ignorant people. Satan has not. at this point in time. singled out the church as his focus of persecution. It is your view that those kinds of remarks are proof of persecution. Go ahead and keep that view. There is a kernel of truth in that belief. But you are trying to pop an entire bucket load of popcorn from that one kernal.I happen to agree with Zerius. The Church is less persecuted and more tolerated and respected today than at any time in its history.You asked me what I thought persecution was, and I clearly answered your question. I will answer it again. Persecution is what the early saints experienced: murder, rape, lynchings, being driven from their homes, wholesale extermination etc. To say that the church is being persecuted today. I feel. is an insult to the persecution that the early saints experienced. That is why I stated that bigoted remarks are more just an annoyance than a sign of persecution.There are no signs that the worlds attitudes are even headed in that direction. In fact, I would argue quite the opposite is the case. Can you name one period of time in the history of the church where there was less persecution of the church than today? When was the church more respected? Two Mormons are running for president for heavens sake. Romney is LEADING the voted. Would that have even been a possibility even 10 years ago? Do you really think that the remarks by ignorant people wasn't going on or even less 5, 10 or 20 years ago?I am simply stating that the time may come when the saints will be persecuted. There will come a time when you will long for these days of relative tolerance of the church to return. And that is my prophesy.The reason why I and others point out that bigotry and hate exists among other groups is not to diminish the bigotry that is hurled against the church, it is to remind you that bigotry is found everywhere. Some minority groups have it far worse than Mormons in the world today. It doesn't take a prophet to say that minority groups are going to be persecuted. It seems to be the human condition. Is it wrong? of course. Should it be tolerated? No. Will others speak up against it? Some will. Do Mormons speak up against bigotry directed at others? Some do.What will decrease the amount of bigotry directed at the church? When good people speak up against bigotry no matter who or what it is directed at. The best thing all members of the Mormon church can do to diminish the bigoted remarks directed against them is to speak up against bigotry no matter where it occurs or who it is directed at. Does the leadership constantly speak up against bigotry directed at other groups? Yes. Are the members of the church know as being a group that fights for the respect of other minorities? Not so much. Edited January 12, 2012 by california boy
Jeff K. Posted January 12, 2012 Posted January 12, 2012 To borrow a salient question in quotesWhen is the line crossed between annoying behavior and persecution, is lynching your magic mark?
thesometimesaint Posted January 12, 2012 Posted January 12, 2012 (edited) California Boy:Until relatively recently it was illegal for Mormons to vote in Idaho. In Tennesse the Church was stopped from building a Temple in Nashville. In California the Redlands Temple open house was marred by dirt deliberately left on the carpets of the Celestial Room. Someone in California sent a white powder, thankfully it turneds out to be harmless, to LDS Temples.So when is the line crossed between simply bigotry, and persecution? Edited January 12, 2012 by thesometimesaint 1
frankenstein Posted January 12, 2012 Posted January 12, 2012 Isolated incidents do not show social acceptance. Sub cultures with in subcultures do not show social acceptance, it only shows that a sub-sub-culture acts a certain way.
Recommended Posts