thesometimesaint Posted September 16, 2015 Posted September 16, 2015 Obviously not (and I didn't say anything at all about Nazis - you did). But your arguments about "freedom" would work just as well in defending Soviet policies, which means your argument is poor. Freedom does have a definition, and by any reasonable definition there is little religious freedom for LDS BYU students In what fantasy world do live in where you can't be held accountable for what you do with what you believe? IE; Ms Davis can believe anything she wants. The job she chose to do involved the law superseding her personal beliefs. If she can't/won't live up to the commitments she voluntarily entered into then integrity says she should voluntarily leave. If a BYU student can't/won't live up to the commitments they voluntarily entered into integrity says they should voluntarily leave. BTW NAZI Germany was a totalitarian nation.
Gray Posted September 16, 2015 Posted September 16, 2015 No one but despots, and anarchists have ever had that type of license. IE; You are free in this country to believe anything you want, you have never been free to do anything you want. Obviously we're not free to do anything we want. But we are free to do certain things - those are the areas where we have freedom. We're not free to murder, but we are free to go to church. BYU students are not free to change religions if they are LDS.
Gray Posted September 16, 2015 Posted September 16, 2015 (edited) In what fantasy world do live in where you can't be held accountable for what you do with what you believe? IE; Ms Davis can believe anything she wants. The job she chose to do involved the law superseding her personal beliefs. If she can't/won't live up to the commitments she voluntarily entered into then integrity says she should voluntarily leave. If a BYU student can't/won't live up to the commitments they voluntarily entered into integrity says they should voluntarily leave. BTW NAZI Germany was a totalitarian nation. There is a broad swath of actions we can choose to take that have zero repercussions from any monitoring agency, whether that agency is an employer, a school or a government. For example, BYU students have freedom to eat at any restaurant they choose. They don't have freedom to join any church they choose, if they are LDS. Edited September 16, 2015 by Gray
The Nehor Posted September 16, 2015 Posted September 16, 2015 Nope. Take a look at the cited examples: BYU, Mozilla, and the US Olympics are all NOT churches. And they are all non-profit organizations. I said churches, businesses, and government organizations. The first is owned by a church, the second is a business, and the third is a non-profit chartered by the federal government. So, one related to each. See what I did there.
Scott Lloyd Posted September 17, 2015 Author Posted September 17, 2015 (edited) I should have pointed out earlier that elder rasband's address includes one very positive development. Scott's report (relevant excerpts quoted below) shows the development well. Instead of labeling gay people as "same-sex attracted" he simply calls them "gay". This is an important step toward tolerance and acceptance. If we intend to have a real dialogue with others, we must allow them to define themselves, just as we expect the right to define our beliefs.Apparently you haven't viewed the recording of the talk yet (or hadn't when you wrote this). There is one occurrence of the phrase "same-sex attraction" (not "same-sex attracted"; I don't know anybody who uses that awkward construction). I don't know what policy the Brethren have on this matter, if any, but it can't be concluded from this speech that they are consciously avoiding or eschewing the phrase "same-sex attraction."Nor should they. It is a perfectly serviceable phrase that can be applied to anyone who, well, is sexually attracted to people of the same sex without necessarily conveying the meaning that one embraces homosexual behavior, culture, lifestyle, as the word "gay" connotes. Edited September 17, 2015 by Scott Lloyd
KevinG Posted September 17, 2015 Posted September 17, 2015 They don't have freedom to join any church they choose, if they are LDS.Yes they do. They just can't expect BYU to subsidize their education when they reject the tenants of the church that founded BYU. Even then the can come back later if another ecclesiastical authority endorses them.Freedom of choice does not equal freedom from consequences. That silly notion is ruining civilization.
Calm Posted September 17, 2015 Posted September 17, 2015 "Even then the can come back later if another ecclesiastical authority endorses them."No, they can't if you mean exmormons. 2
rockpond Posted September 17, 2015 Posted September 17, 2015 Nor should they. It is a perfectly serviceable phrase that can be applied to anyone who, well, is sexually attracted to people of the same sex without necessarily conveying the meaning that one embraces homosexual behavior, culture, lifestyle, as the word "gay" connotes.CFR that "gay" means embracing homosexual behavior, lifestyle, and culture. Can anyone redefine words to suit their preferences? 1
rockpond Posted September 17, 2015 Posted September 17, 2015 Freedom of choice does not equal freedom from consequences. That silly notion is ruining civilization.I agree but I don't see that principle being applied equally by the likes of Oaks and Elder Rasband. If it's okay for BYU to impose consequences for expressing divergent beliefs, than it should also be okay for Mozilla and the US Olympic team to do the same.
rockpond Posted September 17, 2015 Posted September 17, 2015 I said churches, businesses, and government organizations.The first is owned by a church, the second is a business, and the third is a non-profit chartered by the federal government. So, one related to each. See what I did there. All three are private, non-profit organizations. Including the Mozilla Foundation (which owns Mozilla Corp). The question is: why would there be different standards of religious freedom for the people within each organization. It's a double standard to say the it's okay for BYU to expel a student for divergent religious beliefs but it's wrong for employees/customers of Mozilla to want a CEO to resign for the same reason. 1
sethpayne Posted September 17, 2015 Posted September 17, 2015 (edited) These paragraphs contain the kernel of Elder Rasband's address: (Emphasis mine) Words to live by. Indeed. I'm glad to know that you will now remove "SSA" from your vocabulary. Edited September 17, 2015 by sethpayne 1
why me Posted September 17, 2015 Posted September 17, 2015 (edited) Now that Europe is seeing a great influx of muslim migrants who in the past have not been known to believe in religious freedom when we consider the persecution of the christians in muslim countries, I can see a day as their population grows in europe that religious freedom will be in jeopardy. I have no idea how europe will handle the situation two generations down the road. We have already seen jewish establishments being attacked by muslim jihadists in france. I believe that this issue needs to be discussed more when it comes to religious freedom. If tolerance allows a people who seem to be intolerant among them will their be a clash of values or civilizations? And who will win: tolerance or intolerance? Also, any talk on religious freedom needs to concentrate on the plight of christians in the middle east and in other parts of the world, as christian women are raped, sold into slavery and christian men are beheaded. Such a talk cannot just be centered in the United States. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/apr/15/middle-east-christians-islamic-persecution-iraq-war http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/26/magazine/is-this-the-end-of-christianity-in-the-middle-east.html?_r=0 These are the people who should be coming to europe so that they can have religious freedom. Edited September 17, 2015 by why me
Scott Lloyd Posted September 17, 2015 Author Posted September 17, 2015 Indeed. I'm glad to know that you will now remove "SSA" from your vocabulary.Non-sequitur.
Scott Lloyd Posted September 17, 2015 Author Posted September 17, 2015 (edited) CFR that "gay" means embracing homosexual behavior, lifestyle, and culture.Can anyone redefine words to suit their preferences?Since connotations are by nature subjective, they can be difficult-to-impossible to document. Even so, I daresay that for most people today, the term gay implies not just the attraction, but acting on it as well. Not so with same-sex attraction, because attraction does not necessarily equate to behavior. It's my impression that this is why why strident gay-advocacy groups detest it, because they hate even the implication, however subtle it might be, that someone would try to suppress, resist or even overcome same-sex attraction. But I'll admit I haven't taken any opinion polls, if that's what you're demanding. Edited September 17, 2015 by Scott Lloyd 1
Scott Lloyd Posted September 17, 2015 Author Posted September 17, 2015 Just want to say that it's interesting that any thread on religious freedom these days -- even if it is merely calling attention to a General Authority's well-reasoned devotional address -- seems to summon forth a torches-and-pitchforks mentality among some participants here. 1
The Nehor Posted September 17, 2015 Posted September 17, 2015 All three are private, non-profit organizations. Including the Mozilla Foundation (which owns Mozilla Corp).The question is: why would there be different standards of religious freedom for the people within each organization. It's a double standard to say the it's okay for BYU to expel a student for divergent religious beliefs but it's wrong for employees/customers of Mozilla to want a CEO to resign for the same reason. No, not really. I don't necessarily think it should be legally wrong for the Mozilla CEO to be pressured to resign. I think it is more of a social issue then a legal or political one.
The Nehor Posted September 17, 2015 Posted September 17, 2015 Now that Europe is seeing a great influx of muslim migrants who in the past have not been known to believe in religious freedom when we consider the persecution of the christians in muslim countries, I can see a day as their population grows in europe that religious freedom will be in jeopardy. I have no idea how europe will handle the situation two generations down the road. We have already seen jewish establishments being attacked by muslim jihadists in france. I believe that this issue needs to be discussed more when it comes to religious freedom. If tolerance allows a people who seem to be intolerant among them will their be a clash of values or civilizations? And who will win: tolerance or intolerance? Also, any talk on religious freedom needs to concentrate on the plight of christians in the middle east and in other parts of the world, as christian women are raped, sold into slavery and christian men are beheaded. Such a talk cannot just be centered in the United States. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/apr/15/middle-east-christians-islamic-persecution-iraq-war http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/26/magazine/is-this-the-end-of-christianity-in-the-middle-east.html?_r=0 These are the people who should be coming to europe so that they can have religious freedom. Europe is reaping what it has sown. When the Allies supported the Arab Revolt in World War I against the Ottoman Empire they promised the rebelling Arabs political freedom. At the end of hostilities they reneged on the deal, carved up the Empire, and set up puppet governments controlled by the British and the French. They were understandably miffed about this. Attempts at self-rule were quashed to hold on to colonial empires, including the repression of attempts as Islamic democracy. Then to further infuriate the locals they formed the state of Israel in a region where Christians, Jews, and Muslims were, for the most part, living together reasonably well and turned it into another flashpoint for hostility. Then we wring our hands and call them barbarians for not being liberal democracies. Why would they emulate their abusers? The United States (and other western nations) really need to show a little more humility and experience a little more self-reflection about their geopolitical actions. We tend to brazen our way in far too quickly. The recent upsurge in Christian persecution is mostly due to the growing Islamic extremism because the United States has thrown itself into the arena. We basically created ISIS when we left a power vacuum behind when we left. When I was on my mission I met some Arab Christians who had fled to Europe to escape persecution. Their stories were interesting to say the least. It will be interesting to see what steps God takes to bring the gospel to that part of the world. 1
rockpond Posted September 17, 2015 Posted September 17, 2015 Since connotations are by nature subjective, they can be difficult-to-impossible to document.Even so, I daresay that for most people today, the term gay implies not just the attraction, but acting on it as well.Not so with same-sex attraction, because attraction does not necessarily equate to behavior. It's my impression that this is why why strident gay-advocacy groups detest it, because they hate even the implication, however subtle it might be, that someone would try to suppress, resist or even overcome same-sex attraction.But I'll admit I haven't taken any opinion polls, if that's what you're demanding.I daresay that your interpretation of the word gay has been heavily influenced by the Mormon environment in which you live and work. 1
Tacenda Posted September 17, 2015 Posted September 17, 2015 Since connotations are by nature subjective, they can be difficult-to-impossible to document.Even so, I daresay that for most people today, the term gay implies not just the attraction, but acting on it as well.Not so with same-sex attraction, because attraction does not necessarily equate to behavior. It's my impression that this is why why strident gay-advocacy groups detest it, because they hate even the implication, however subtle it might be, that someone would try to suppress, resist or even overcome same-sex attraction.But I'll admit I haven't taken any opinion polls, if that's what you're demanding.Take the poll, I think you'll find it enlightening. SSA is cheapening their ability to stay celibate even though they know they are gay. SSA, isn't the same. Hope that makes sense. IOW, SSA appears to say they are heterosexual with some SSA on the side. If a person feels they were born that way, they simply "are". Not any connotation added onto being a heterosexual.
rockpond Posted September 17, 2015 Posted September 17, 2015 Just want to say that it's interesting that any thread on religious freedom these days -- even if it is merely calling attention to a General Authority's well-reasoned devotional address -- seems to summon forth a torches-and-pitchforks mentality among some participants here.Nah... No torches or pitchforks. It's just that what you claim is well-reasoned, we realize is a double standard of religious freedom that has become the Church's rally cry in recent years. 1
Calm Posted September 17, 2015 Posted September 17, 2015 "SSA appears to say they are heterosexual with some SSA on the side"That doesn't really make sense.That is like saying a woman is a man with feminine features added.
rockpond Posted September 17, 2015 Posted September 17, 2015 No, not really. I don't necessarily think it should be legally wrong for the Mozilla CEO to be pressured to resign. I think it is more of a social issue then a legal or political one.Okay. So are you agreeing or disagreeing with Oaks/Rasband on the Mozilla CEO issue? Was what happened to Eich wrong?
Senator Posted September 17, 2015 Posted September 17, 2015 Just want to say that it's interesting that any thread on religious freedom these days -- even if it is merely calling attention to a General Authority's well-reasoned devotional address -- seems to summon forth a torches-and-pitchforks mentality among some participants here. Waxing a bit hyperbolic, are we? "Religious freedom", is a high calorie subject. Did you expect everyone to respond in lockstep agreement with everything that a General Authority says?
Tacenda Posted September 17, 2015 Posted September 17, 2015 "SSA appears to say they are heterosexual with some SSA on the side"That doesn't really make sense.That is like saying a woman is a man with feminine features added.Well people that don't act on it are referred to as SSA, at least that's what has been insinuated by some, Scott maybe, in the board. I'm saying there are people that are coming out as gay and still not acting on it. Why cheapen that fortitude and not call them how they feel? SSA connotates that they weren't born that way or are really heterosexual but have attractions to the same sex also. Hope that makes sense. And I'm not gay, so if I've totally misconstrued this, please correct me...you who are.
The Nehor Posted September 17, 2015 Posted September 17, 2015 Okay. So are you agreeing or disagreeing with Oaks/Rasband on the Mozilla CEO issue? Was what happened to Eich wrong?I think it was sub-optimal. Not sure if it was wrong or not.
Recommended Posts