Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Should bad ideas be respected just because they are religious ideas?

Posted 2 years ago on June 11, 2012, 3:28 p.m. EST by fiftyfourforty (1077) from New York, NY
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Maybe there's a good reason that Mormon teachings get no respect.

http://nomormonpresidentnomittromney2012.blogspot.com/2012/06/should-bad-ideas-be-respected-just.html

205 Comments

205 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 5 points by JPB950 (2254) 2 years ago

No one has to respect the views of any religion. You could spend the next few years parsing the teachings and beliefs of each religion and find irrationality in all of them. What we do have to respect is the right everyone has to freely exercise the beliefs they choose.

[-] 0 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

Harvey Dent for President

[-] 1 points by JPB950 (2254) 2 years ago

From before of after the accident?

[-] -1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

the accident was rigged

[-] 1 points by JPB950 (2254) 2 years ago

Doesn't matter or answer the question.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

all candidates are from Harvard

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Harley Quinn for vice President

[-] 1 points by stevebol (1269) from Milwaukee, WI 2 years ago

Someone who didn't go to Harvard for president.

[-] 1 points by stevebol (1269) from Milwaukee, WI 2 years ago

Roseanne Barr for president

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

John Goodman for Vice Pres

[-] 1 points by stevebol (1269) from Milwaukee, WI 2 years ago

OK, maybe. But seriously, Stein won the nomination so that's-that. I think Roseanne is much better at the populist stuff than these harvard people but she lost.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Stein?

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

Jill was born in Chicago and raised in suburban Highland Park, Illinois. She graduated magna cum laude from Harvard College in 1973

http://www.jillstein.org/bio

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

ok. thanks. Green is gold

[-] 1 points by stevebol (1269) from Milwaukee, WI 2 years ago

Another Harvard populist tool.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

Harvard must have the best organized network to run US politics

[-] 1 points by stevebol (1269) from Milwaukee, WI 2 years ago

Of course. The Ivy League is about connections not quality of learning.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

Harvard hires(scholarship) many of the brightest from the population

the rest are the elite 1%

I'm sure Harvard's labs and Libraries are well funded

[-] 1 points by stevebol (1269) from Milwaukee, WI 2 years ago

AFAIK Jill Stein won the Geen Party nomination.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

It's not easy bein green. but I like 'em

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

I don't think she's running .... she was going to run on the Green Party ticket, but Jill Stein ending up winning the GP nomination.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago
[-] 1 points by stevebol (1269) from Milwaukee, WI 2 years ago

I know. I think she started the Green Tea Party. Time to put a woman in charge.

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

Absolutely, as a dude, I think it's time a woman has a shot, and then after that .... no more top down anything :)

[-] -1 points by EndTwoPartyTyranny (14) 2 years ago

"The word bipartisan means some larger-than-usual deception is being carried out."--George Carlin

[-] 0 points by JPB950 (2254) 2 years ago

I'm not sure exactly how that applies to my statement, but Carlin was often right as well as humorous.

[-] -2 points by fiftyfourforty (1077) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Mormonism is an activist cult with a political agenda. It's not just some wacky beliefs that bother me. Most people have those. And I do not agree that we have to respect a right of " everyone has to freely exercise the beliefs they choose." The problem word here is "exercise." If the Massai in East Africa believe that their god has given them the right to take cattle from other tribes without the bother of purchasing them, they do not get a pass on cattle rustling because their god told them it's okay. The Mormon god says that the Mormons need to rule the world.

[-] 4 points by JPB950 (2254) 2 years ago

All I got from the link was a short list of the wacky beliefs. The first amendment guarantees us the free exercise of the religion of our choice. You or I don't get to evaluate those teachings and cherry pick beliefs we agree with for someone else.

The Masai in Africa can do whatever local laws in Africa let them get away with, Masai that come to the US may have to curtail their rustling, the same way courts have blocked Mormons or Moslems from practicing polygamy legally.

The Court has, on occasion, restricted religious practice for several reasons. Until they decide Mormonism isn't a religion, its followers have the same rights to worship, or not, that you and I do. We also have the option of respecting those beliefs or not.

Even if you're completely right about Mormons having a political agenda that most of us are unaware of, so what? Are you saying people don't have a right to associate into groups for political purposes? If religious and political beliefs overlap, again so what?

[-] 2 points by fiftyfourforty (1077) from New York, NY 2 years ago

I would not want the government to close down Mormon churches. I would want everyone to believe whatever he or she wants to. It's the practice that's the sticking point.

[-] 1 points by JPB950 (2254) 2 years ago

There it depends on just what that practice involves. Take polygamy as a simple example. Could a Mormon president get polygamy (or any secret Mormon goal) accepted in the US? I don't see a danger, if he tried I believe he'd fail and ruin the chances for another Mormon to gain high office.

No matter what the shadowy agenda of Mormonism might be, you'd need a minimum of a majority in both houses and 5 judges on the Supreme Court to get significant change. There are enough planks in the republican platform that people can find fault with, enough reasons not to vote for Romney, without attacking a First Amendment right. That gives us the right to practice what we believe.

[-] 1 points by fiftyfourforty (1077) from New York, NY 2 years ago

And the right doesn't have a majority on the Supreme Court? The right isn't a whisker away from total control of the Senate? Get real. It's wake up time. The other side plays for keeps.

[-] 2 points by JPB950 (2254) 2 years ago

Sure they do, but they aren't Mormons and they would be unlikely to support unconstitutional changes in law that would benefit your conspiring Mormons in whatever takeover you think they are plotting.

If you want a more liberal Court, it's certainly a good reason to support Obama. I just feel that an attack on a religion is an ill-conceived way to go after Romney.

[-] 1 points by fiftyfourforty (1077) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Something like a third of Republicans are at least uncomfortable voting for a Mormon. Actually they have good reason even from their point of view. I hope to help remind as many of them as I can.

"I just feel that an attack on a religion is an ill-conceived way to go after Romney." What if Romney were a Moonie?

[-] 1 points by JPB950 (2254) 2 years ago

Sorry, I see the religion issue as a distraction. I vote FOR a candidate and their ideas. In my opinion it's the uninformed that vote out of fear. You start with a general statement in your post about respecting religion, but you've got a different poorly concealed agenda. You simply want to generate fear over someone's religious beliefs. Start that and Obama should have to answer for Reverend Wright and the beliefs published by that church. In either case it's off point.

[-] 1 points by fiftyfourforty (1077) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Obama already has these problems. That's why Trump revived the birther stuff. And if the Mormons are a group that should be feared they are what they are.

[-] 1 points by JPB950 (2254) 2 years ago

None of this stuff about voting is all that relevant to your original post. I think the following facts are. We currently have a First Amendment that allows for the free exercise of a religion. It falls to the Supreme Court to set limits on that or make the decision what constitutes a legitimate religion. You can believe Mormonism is a cult, but until you convince at least 5 justices, the Mormons get to exercise their beliefs.

Believe what you want, that's your right, but you asked the question about respecting beliefs. The answer is you don't have to respect anyone, but you don't have the right to deny them their right to practice what they believe. Even if it is world domination, legally pursued through the electoral process or wearing silly under garments.

[-] 1 points by fiftyfourforty (1077) from New York, NY 2 years ago

"their right to practice what they believe. "

Polygamy is illegal and the reason the LDS doesn't (at least openly) practice it is not because their god says they can't. It's because the government says so.

[-] 1 points by JPB950 (2254) 2 years ago

Mentioned polygamy earlier, that's something the Supreme Court has determined, they can limit the exercise of religion, you, me or any other individual doesn't have that right. The court wisely uses that power to limit worship sparingly.

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Courts go with the money. Otherwise it wouldnt matter if it was R or D appointed, 90% of the shit that has happened the last 20 years would be thrown out.

It was a R court that decided the Roe vs Wade case. Follow the money.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Repub scotus appointees found in favor of citizens united. Dem appointees dissented. That is clear evidence the repub appointees want to steal elections for their repub appointers. Follow THAT money!!

[-] 2 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

I have followed the money throughout the decisions, it always goes with the money.

Same reason why the SCOTUS is going to uphold the gov forcing us to buy from the insurance cartel. Its all about the money.

Obviously they arent going to vote 7-0 on this stuff, gotta keep the people believing they have a say, right? :)

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Yeah sure. The right loves the health insurance mandate gift. So I think it may be upheld and that is certainly about the money. The left wants a public option. And we will GET a public option if we protest and agitate for it. We will not get it if we leave it up to the corp owned right wing and backbone deficient, right leaning left wing! We must force that change and any other change we want.

[-] -1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

We had our shot. We could have had it. The Dems showed their true colors.

We may still get it, but it will never be because the Dems decided its a good idea. You are forgetting the insurance companies fund all the Dem candidates too.

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

The dems did blow it. but the left wants a public option. We were not protesting during the health reform debate. The left was asleep, lazy, expected the Pres to do everything. We left the protests to the right wing tea party. We need to learn that we MUST protest if we want anything to change. We can't sit on the couch and snipe at Dems! "Dems showed there true colors". Whine whine whine. Nothing will change if we don't give the dems/left something to point at ans say. Sorry can't vote against public option because the people need it. Get it? It ain't the dems at fault! It is US!. YOU! & me.

[-] 2 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

You are forgetting that the right has lost all of their core principles too, they are stuck with corporatism too.

What is going on now is not right or left wing, but a horrendous perversion of both. Making sure the right thinks their party has moved too far left, and vise versa, is key to keeping the status quo going.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

the right and left wing political spectrum has not been rescinded in America. The right wing has gotten what they want and that is why we are in the catastrophic mess we are. The left would help the 99% if it still existed as any measurable force in our 2 party politics. The right may not please all right wing constituents as not being right enough but we see every cycle more moderate repubs being replaced with more right wing pols. You don't see it, I'm sorry about that. Nothing will ever eliminate the right/left reality of life. It goes back throughout human history. You either care about other people (left), Or you don't (right).

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Please take your pro-Dem party stuff to a GA and speak on general stack on it. Please. I am begging you.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

The dems have moved right for 30 years. They have continually caved in and lost their backbone when confronting your right wing wackos. We have lost our left wing in the 2 party system. It must be rebuilt (by OWS)from the ground up preferably. But certainly by any means necessary. And certainly not while we ignore the right wing wacko policies and pols who have created this catastrophe for the 99%. We must vote out all right wing pols. Even if the are dems!

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Thank you for proving my point again. Saying that last statement was idiotic is the truth, sorry. You may not be an idiot in real life, but your understanding of money and our political system of divide and conquer is pathetic at best.

Good bye, and good luck with your R vs L nonsense.

Save it for the politicians, OWS could give a shit about it.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

your hostility, disrespect, abusive treatment of people is not what this movement is based on. You are clearly not interested in discussing important issues intelligently and in a civil way. Your resorting to these tactics is clearly a hateful right wing effort to subvert the good progressive goals and ideas of OWS. Support OWS! Vote out hateful right wing wacko politicians

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Shallow idiotic statements are why you get people questioning the legitimacy of this site.

That last statement was so freakin dumb I am going to assume you are in high school still. Hopefully I am correct.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Resorting to name calling simply betrays the weakness of your arguments. Right/left, conservative/liberal are just words to describe thoughts, positions, postures, agendas towards other people. You can disown the words but you cannot deny that how we treat each other is at the center our problems. I am not a high school kid, I have a child in college! How old are you.? You disagree? speak intelligently. don't resort to intimidation, schoolyard bullying tactics that the right wing Romney would use. You are using right wing tactics! because those tactics are not considerate, and respectful of other people (left). Understand?

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

No one puts the blame on the public more than I do. Im the guy with threads like "The Masses Are Asses"...remember?

The left is funded by the same people that fund the right. They simply dont care, get it?

I agree that protesting is better than doing nothing. But forming new options (hence OWS) is where the real change comes from. We used to form new parties in this country all the time.

Now we are just lazy and apathetic.

A few are trying to do so, and having a hell of a time getting going.... http://www.justicepartyusa.net/

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Protest in the streets? Agreed! break the grip of party duopoly? Definately! How? open primaries, money out of politics/publicly funded campaigns, mandatory voting for ALL eligible citizens, eliminate electoral college, expand House of reps. Protest, protest, protest against the 1%, support the 99%. Surrender more power and influence to right wing 1% tools?. NEVER.!! The Dems have moved right for 30 years. (We have lost our left wing while we slept) The dems have lost their backbone against the right because the left stopped agitating, voting and protesting for the 99%! This is how right wing wacko policies have destroyed the 99%.

[-] 0 points by JPB950 (2254) 2 years ago

I'm not sure I agree with that simplistic assessment of the Court. If we assume it is true then that gives us even less reason to worry about his fears of a Mormon take over.

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

The only way we end up with a Mormon takeover is if it will generate the multinationals more business. I dont think it would. Hence, no worries....

[-] 0 points by JenLynn (692) 2 years ago

LOL, you never read the First Amendment then I guess. I added the capital letters for emphasis.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREO; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Free exercise means they can practice what they believe, up to a point. The Supreme Court has put limits on it at times.

[-] 2 points by fiftyfourforty (1077) from New York, NY 2 years ago

"Free exercise means they can practice what they believe, up to a point. The Supreme Court has put limits on it at times." Yes, Moslems and Mormons are not allowed by the law to have multiple wives, Massai are not allowed to steal cattle. And we all are allowed to learn about and even to criticize "religions" and religions. If a citizen learns about a cult and concludes that that cult is a danger, that citizen is permitted to and indeed ought to speak out about it.

[-] 1 points by JenLynn (692) 2 years ago

You're trying to sell fear. Sometimes it works, at least on those that don't think much. We all have a right to campaign the way we want. I think you're making a mistake but you do what you want. If religion becomes a big deal, Obama has some problems there too.

[-] 1 points by fiftyfourforty (1077) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Obama already has these problems. That's why Trump revived the birther stuff. And if the Mormons are a group that should be feared they are what they are.

[-] 1 points by JenLynn (692) 2 years ago

I just think you're wrong. I don't believe in any god myself, but think it's bigoted to pick on someone else's beliefs.

Mormons are only 4% of the population, African-Americans and Hispanics make up 28%. Person's of color will be the new majority long before the Mormons could ever get enough power to change anything. That makes you overly paranoid about the Mormons.

[-] 1 points by fiftyfourforty (1077) from New York, NY 2 years ago

If you raise cattle and a Massai temple is built near you and you start to see cattle vanishing you'd do well to check out your new neighbors, not out of bigotry but because their god allows them to steal your cattle.

[-] 1 points by JenLynn (692) 2 years ago

I'll let you know when it happens, and when it does I'm sure the courts will put restrictions on the practice. You're acting out of an unreasoning panic. It isn't any more likely for Mormons to take over then it is the NAACP or Black Panthers will take over from Obama.

The real take over has come from the corporations and they are looking more multi-national and not just one ethnic or religious group. That's a better place to put your paranoia.

[-] 1 points by fiftyfourforty (1077) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Replying to this comment (no space for reply) http://occupywallst.org/forum/should-bad-ideas-be-respected-just-because-they-ar/#comment-765154

http://www.examiner.com/article/california-ethics-commission-finds-mormons-guilty-on-13-counts-of-late-prop-8-campaign-reporting "Don Eaton a spokesman for the Mormon Church said in an interview with KGO-TV (ABC San Francisco) "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints put zero money in this.”

Three months later the Mormon Church filed an amended return in which they admitted to spending $190,000. Unfortunately, this was 3 months after the election, so 17 million California voters never were able to know the full extent of the Mormon involvement until well after the election.

The Mormon Church ran phone banks, sent out direct mail, had well designed web sites, produced 27 slick commercials, bussed people in from Utah and had lots of travel expenses by high ranking Church officials. They also raised approximately $30 million from Mormon families to pass Proposition 8.

The Mormon Church also was behind the creation of the infamous National Organization for Marriage (NOM) in 2007, and was the biggest contributor to pass Prop 8."

Ah, yes, they call it "lying for The Lord."

Why are you so hot to defend this lying ass cult?

[-] 1 points by JenLynn (692) 2 years ago

Not defending them or their actions, just their right to worship as they see fit. If their actions broke the laws then they need to be prosecuted for it. That doesn't alter the First Amendment.

According to the LA times, the foes of Prop 8 raised just over $44 million, those in favor of banning same sex marriage raised $38 million. This is one of the few issues where I don't believe the money made much difference. It's just one of those things that is going to take more time for people to accept.

[-] 1 points by fiftyfourforty (1077) from New York, NY 2 years ago

My points were:

1- The Mormon church was active in a political matter.

2- They lied (as par for the course) and said they had not contributed any money to the cause.

You can bet they are already working hard for their White Horse man Mitt Romney and that they'll lie like rugs about that and anything else that serves their lord.

You repeatedly lie and misrepresent my ideas. Are you by any chance a Mormon? I know you have friends who are.

[-] 0 points by JenLynn (692) 2 years ago

I was brought up Roman Catholic, but don't practice any religion and don't really believe there is a god, but that isn't the point. It's the constitution I am speaking up for. As far as friends do I'm not aware of any that are Mormon.

Anyone has the right to worship as they see fit. If the Supreme Court has placed a restriction on worship and someone has evidence that restriction has been violated then they should offer that evidence to the authorities. If they simply don't like the religion then they are certainly free to speak out against it. I'm also free to hold to the opinion that the beliefs of 4% of the population are not a serious threat.

Religious groups don't give up their rights as citizens. There are some religious groups against birth control, abortion, same sex marriage, homosexuality in general, and war. All these issues and more are going to stray into the political world. If it's a moral issue as well as political I can understand where a priest, rabbi, or minister would feel compelled to speak out. I believe he has every right to.

[-] 1 points by fiftyfourforty (1077) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Of course the take over is corporate. the most advanced foot soldiers they have and a ready to go on the ground organization is the LDS. Ask the people who fought them in California over Prop. 8.

[-] 1 points by JenLynn (692) 2 years ago

Polls show that same sex marriage is one of those things that are likely to split close to 50-50 in elections. You can find some individual ministers supportive, but many religions against it not just the Mormons.

Even if you're right and the Mormons single handedly defeated prop 8. They have a right to protest and work for the kind of world they want. That same right extends to OWS and every other group in the minority. Do you really want to start limiting freedoms because the majority has voted against you? Blaming your nation's problems on a religion has been done before. It didn't end well.

[-] 1 points by fiftyfourforty (1077) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Did I use words like "single handedly?" The Mormons were the backbone, the spearhead, the funding well of the Prop 8 movement, and they did it illegally (they are a tax exempt church) and dishonestly. They will do the same again and again as the opportunities arise.

[-] 1 points by JenLynn (692) 2 years ago

It doesn't matter if they did it alone or not, it's an issue which is close to 50-50 for the country. So either way a lot of people are going to be disappointed. It's also seen as a moral issue by many. On any moral issue a religious group has the right to offer an opinion.

The funding didn't come from the church itself, it simply urged member to follow what it considers a moral course. It's not that different then what churches do about abortion. Being a religious group does not force you to give up your other rights.

[-] 1 points by JPB950 (2254) 2 years ago

Obviously this agreement is something to protest and make sure the Senate doesn't approve. Doesn't seem to have much to do with the First Amendment though.

[-] 0 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

so what? do you see the human rights violations going on in countries that allow politics and religion to overlap? ever hear of sharia law? completely based on a religion with no regard for human beings. thats why it matters . thats why you cannot have religion mixed in with running a government, society or country.

[-] 0 points by JPB950 (2254) 2 years ago

When any group can get two thirds of the House and Senate and three quarters of the States to agree to changing the constitution the minority of us left will have to move or adapt. Right now under the constitution we have, anyone has the right to freely exercise their religious beliefs. Mine is atheism. I'll defend a Moslem's right to vote for sharia, and trust the rest of us to vote against it and maintain the First Amendments prohibition on establishing a State religion.

I might start to worry if a religious group were developing a voting block the size of the current conservative or progressive blocks. I'm not sure it would make me abandon the constitution though, or the idea that we should follow the will of the people. I can also be be blasé about it because I don't believe it's possible for a theocracy to come to power here.

If OWS could get that kind of majority and change the constitution to make the US a direct democracy along the lines of Chomsky's anarcho-syndicalism or any other system. I'd say the same thing, so what? Whatever that kind of majority wants it can put in place.

[-] 3 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

The problem is not religions or ideas
One religion believes it is a glorious honor to be reincarnated as a rat
The problem is when any religion FORCES its ideas on others
The Maoists executing the intellectuals
The Protestants burning witches The Catholics burning Jews


The problem is when any religion FORCES its ideas on others

[-] 2 points by JPB950 (2254) 2 years ago

Religions aren't all that different from political groups. Many are engaged in forcing their will on others. Religions do have the right to seek to convert, even force their will on the rest of us through legal, political means. If you take away that right from groups, I see it as voting to maintain the status quo.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

Interesting point.
but imagine a political party not motivated by any religious goals
or crapitalistic greed - would your premise be valid?

[-] 1 points by JPB950 (2254) 2 years ago

I think it's valid, for the most part. You will certainly need to convert a vast number of people in this country, so that much easily holds true. Today's two main political parties are certainly heavily invested in the status quo.

Any new party would have to follow the legal rules of the game to achieve power.That new group with a new morality would, if it came to power, most likely take steps to establish its own new balance and protect the new status quo.

[-] 0 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

SOME of the status quo
SOME of the differences:
privatization of army & schools & prisons
taxing the rich
taxing corps
taxing capital gains
filibuster
hiring teachers & cops
killing unions
killing the post office
infrastructure spending
regulating banks, etc
closing Guantanamo


AND THE BIGGEST:
THE SUPREME COURT


[-] 1 points by JPB950 (2254) 2 years ago

Sorry you've lost me. I don't see how these concepts fit in with what we were saying.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

sorry for the obtuse angle
I strongly feel that Rs & Ds are VERY different in their priorities
No - I don't think Obama is a saint - but.......

[-] 1 points by JPB950 (2254) 2 years ago

I agree, when you get to specifics they have different goals. The similarity for me is in the extent to which faith is involved and the tendency to proselytize.

[-] 0 points by EndTwoPartyTyranny (14) 2 years ago

"The word bipartisan means some larger-than-usual deception is being carried out."--George Carlin

[-] -1 points by fiftyfourforty (1077) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Or would force the matter if they could and are not just sitting around waiting. That's the Mormon cult. Mormonism is a cult of deception. Their aim is a theocracy ruled by them. Mitt Romney is not just any Mormon or any rich Mormon. He's descendant of one of the original thirteen scammers who set up the racket/cult from the beginning and he carries the hopes of the cult leaders for domination.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

Look- I despise everything willard stands for
greed
lies
etc............


but really, if he was an Orthodox Jew, would you badger him here for saying you are not a Jew if you are not Orthodox?


One of the inherent features of almost all religions i nclge
mine is right - yours is wrong
as long as I am kind to my brethren, I can do anything to any of the "others" including lyong and killing
I must make or covert as many as possible


all of this is revolting - but it is not why I am against willard

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

Only atheists get to say "we're right, and everyone else is an idiot" :)

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

ask Hitchens the next time you see him :-)

[-] 2 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

Wow, you mean even atheists die? It must have been because the boogeyman hated him :)

Boo!

[-] -1 points by fiftyfourforty (1077) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Romney and Obama are neck and neck in opinion polls. The big money is just now getting deployed. Many of the Republican base are leery of Mormonism. While Romney surrogate Donald Trump still openly pushes birtherism (racism) against Obama Democrats want to be such gentlemen. While the Republicans come at them with a brass knuckle bowie knife in one hand and a baseball bat in the other Democrats have a boxing glove on one hand and the Marquis of Queensbury rules firmly grasped in the other. Progressives are even worse when it comes to getting down and political.

So, by all means do not exploit this schism in the enemy camp that's actually based upon some reality. It would be so, so, so unfair and unseemly!

[-] 1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 2 years ago

"So, by all means do not exploit this schism in the enemy camp that's actually based upon some reality. It would be so, so, so unfair and unseemly!"

Interesting choice of words- "based upon some reality". Whose version of reality? Yours? Anti-LDS groups?

You DO realize that all any, honest, intelligent person has to do is actually compare what you are SAYING ABOUT the Mormons to the LDS Church's official, recognized doctrines and teachings in order to determine that what you are saying here is nothing more than ugly propaganda and lies. Don't you?

www.mormon.org or www.lds.org

[-] 1 points by fiftyfourforty (1077) from New York, NY 2 years ago

No. Mormons lie consistently. One has to look at their history, not what they say their history is.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

THANK YOU


The anarchists, the libertarians and the trolls -
urging progressives, liberals, Democrats not to vote
for the only people that CAN defeat grover-charlie-dave-alec


The "gentlemanly" game played by the Democrats & Obama


I wish I knew who was doing us more damage


I have been urging my friends at MSNBC for two years to
use the words lie and liar -
I think my nagging has finally succeeded ;<)

[-] 2 points by fiftyfourforty (1077) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Well I am with you part of the way. I do think it would be good to hand the right an electoral defeat and it would be terrible if they booted Obama and took the entire Congress, though I have no confidence in either Obama or the Democrats who are in Congress now. It's just that they do rely on a more progressive electoral base and so are a bit more vulnerable to pressure from the left. More importantly I see a real loss of morale among progressive elements and a real rise in morale among the neanderthals if this were to happen.

When all is said and done, and when push comes to shove progressive change does not come through the ballot it comes from progressive activism. Today progressive activism is called "Occupy."

[-] 1 points by MsStacy (1035) 2 years ago

You're talking like you think there is a chance the Mormons alone could alter the constitution. There are only 14 million world wide. If you hate Romney go after his policies. Attacking a religion as a source of evil sounds a bit 1930-ish, and thinking 14 million Mormons are going to rule the world strays into conspiracy theory.

[-] 1 points by fiftyfourforty (1077) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Their ultimate goal is a theocratic "Kingdom" led by themselves. They do not respect any other religion but they will dissemble and prevaricate for as long and as much as they have to to win. They are about winning. It is said that they have 60,000 missionaries in the field worldwide. They don't intend to stay small. How many organizations command such dedication from their members that they are willing to give up two years of their lives to spread their organization?

[-] 1 points by MsStacy (1035) 2 years ago

Any group can run people for office and try to take control of the national agenda. We don't stop minority members of a race or religion. If they can convince a majority of the nation their way is right the system allows for them a means to take over.

Personally, the Mormons are a little too patriarchal for me, but if it came down to LDS or Islam, I'd have to go with the Mormons. I don't see a danger, they are a small group, both the African American and Hispanic populations are much larger and growing at a faster rate. The Mormons are not likely to ever win controlling numbers in the House or Senate. Except for Utah and Idaho their numbers in any State are not significant.

You may fear Romney, but what power does the president actually have? The biggest danger is in Supreme Court nominations, but we have the Senate as a check and he's not going to get 5 or 6 appointments, even if he is elected.

[-] 1 points by fiftyfourforty (1077) from New York, NY 2 years ago

As is the Supreme Court already gave us Bush II. The Senate is up for grabs as more Democrats are in play than Republicans. The Mormons have 60,000 of their zombies recruiting while we write little notes to each other.

But progressives are famous for finding silver linings and excuses not to get nasty and try to win.

[-] 0 points by MsStacy (1035) 2 years ago

You're shifting things from a straight forward hatred for a religion, and transferring to a general concern about all conservatives. Which is it, hate Mormons and the LDS or hate conservative ideas? Hate conservative ideas we can agree on some things, attack the First Amendment and you look like just another bigot needing sheets and a pointy white hat.

You don't want Romney to win, I get it, and there are a lot of reasons to vote against Romney and re-elect Obama. Why not get some legitimate facts together and stop attacking a religion. Kennedy didn't turn the government over to the Pope, Obama didn't give the keys to the White House to the NAACP.

[-] 1 points by fiftyfourforty (1077) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Mormonism is real. It is a disciplined, well funded and deceptive political cult movement that for the moment is the actual spearhead of the far conservative movement we agree is bad.

[-] 0 points by MsStacy (1035) 2 years ago

That all may be true, but Mormons have every right to believe what they believe, no matter how silly it is. They have every right to be conservative, no matter how backwards it seems.

Would you be as worried about the Mormons if Romney was an evangelical Christian? Are you worried about Obama having gone to the Reverend Wright's church? You're posts about Mormons take on the aspect of hate pieces, or conspiracy theory paranoia.

I want people to vote for or against the programs Romney or Obama want, not their color or religion. I don't want to start doing the kinds of manipulation that corporations do to make people afraid of a candidate.

You think it will work, ok, that's your decision, I think it looks like it's done out of desperation.

[-] 1 points by fiftyfourforty (1077) from New York, NY 2 years ago

The fact that Romney is the GOP candidate certainly energizes the Mormons. It also helps in their recruitment efforts as it makes them more mainstream (when in fact they are not). It might not bother you that a "religion" that teaches that dark skin is a curse from their god is going mainstream. It bothers me a lot.

[-] 1 points by MsStacy (1035) 2 years ago

Of course they are not mainstream, neither were the Catholics when Kennedy was running, neither are the Jews or African-Americans. We've obviously hit an impasse, you might honestly believe there is some unseen evil conspiracy inside the LDS church. I think you're being foolish and simply don't care. They are too small a group to worry about.

[-] 0 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 2 years ago

"Their aim is a theocracy ruled by them."

That you are determined to post lies and propaganda about a specific religion is clear to anyone with the ability and integrity to actually ask or go to actual LDS Church sources to find out exactly what "Mormons" believe.

Why is that? Do you make a regular practice of seeking out, or accepting information as credible from, anti or opposition sites/sources of every group or concept you investigate? Do you go to anti OWS websites to get credible information about OWS? Do you go to Republican websites to gather intel on Democrats or vice versa?

LDS Doctrine and Covenants 58:20-22 states-

21 Let no man break the laws of the land, for he that keepeth the laws of God hath no need to break the laws of the land.

22 Wherefore, be subject to the powers that be, until he reigns whose right it is to reign, and subdues all enemies under his feet.

Those who wish to honestly learn more about what "Mormons"-the particular sect of "Mormonism" that Mitt Romney actually belongs to (because there ARE multiple break out sects of Mormonism whose beliefs and doctrines are NOT in agreement) believes and practices can read all they wish to at : http://mormon.org/ or www.lds.org

[-] 1 points by fiftyfourforty (1077) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Yeah sure. That's why they fought the US forces in Utah, set up their own religious militias in Utah, Missouri and Illinois, and massacred a wagon train of Christian Americans at Mountain Meadow. And that's why they openly violated US law regarding polygamy for thirty years and why Romney's ancestors went to Mexico to evade that law.

Do you think it was for nothing that their neighbors in Missouri and then Illinois couldn't abide them and pushed them away?

[-] 1 points by friendlyopposition (574) 2 years ago

Shall I assume you hate Muslims and Jews as well?

[-] 2 points by fiftyfourforty (1077) from New York, NY 2 years ago

I don't hate anyone. I do fear the Mormon Church. As for Jews, well, I wouldn't vote for someone who embraces the belief that he is part of a specially blessed group, blessed before birth, and I would not want to vote for someone who embraces openly or by implication a dual citizenship with Israel, which is presently granted by the Israeli State to anyone who has a Jewish mother. Many modern and secular Jewish people embrace modern Christian influenced ethics and are repelled by Israel and its supremacist actions. No doubt many of those people are working in and for Occupy and other aligned groups. I embrace those people.

As for Muslims, I would not vote for a polygamist or for someone who advocates polygamy. Islam is a religion of oppressed people and I won't join in on any lynching party against Islam here in the West.

There are Muslims who are trying to modernize their religion nd culture. I endorse them.

[-] 0 points by friendlyopposition (574) 2 years ago

Interesting. Of all the religions in the world to be afraid of, you pick LDS. That's kind of bizarre.

[-] 2 points by fiftyfourforty (1077) from New York, NY 2 years ago

That's because the Mormons are what they are not because of anything internal to myself. They are a well organized well disciplined well funded right wing fanatical cult. That's not the same as a group of poor downtrodden people who meet in a store front looking for comfort and mutual aid.

[-] 1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 2 years ago

Should all posts be respected just because they claim to accurately represent the religious ideas of someone else? Obviously no.

One could easily say that OWS is a "activist cult with a political agenda". You should be very careful about the epithets you use in your attempts to discredit others, especially when others see them as equally applicable to you as well.

The Mormon religion's Articles of Faith #12 states: "We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law."

10 states-"We believe in the literal gathering of Israel and in the restoration of the Ten Tribes; that Zion (the New Jerusalem) will be built upon the American continent; that Christ will reign personally upon the earth; and, that the earth will be renewed and receive its paradisiacal glory."

Seems to me that while you, and the author of the blog you referenced share a very different opinion of what you THINK Mormons believe, that the actual LDS Church's doctrine states that at some future point Christ/God will rule the world and that they themselves are to be subject to their elected officials and obey, honor, and sustain the laws until then.

http://www.lds.org/library/display/0,4945,106-1-2-1,FF.html

[-] 0 points by fiftyfourforty (1077) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Mormons, like any three card Monte scammers have to be watched more and listened to less.

[-] 0 points by stevebol (1269) from Milwaukee, WI 2 years ago

Ayn Rand, is that you?

[-] 0 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 2 years ago

Meaning what exactly?

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-MXCCrxsWWQ&feature=plcp

From "The Book of Mormon" -- All American Prophet (lyrics)!

I also recommend the South Park episode: "All About Mormons"

http://www.southparkstudios.com/full-episodes/s07e12-all-about-mormons

Good laughs at the expense of the incredibly laughable :)

[-] 1 points by fiftyfourforty (1077) from New York, NY 2 years ago

They would be laughable entirely if they were not so dedicated, organized and wealthy.

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

Respect is earned, not given. While, it is not my place to tell somebody what they can or can not believe. I can certainly scoff at any idea I so choose. Magical underwear...give me a break...

[-] 1 points by fiftyfourforty (1077) from New York, NY 2 years ago

I wish I really understood human psychology. People tend to shun logic and reality and to embrace magical thinking and things that on the face of it are ridiculous. People seem to want to be lied to. Am I missing something here?

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

Socrate's cave maybe. Scientists can't provide all answers concerning reality (esp. concerning the afterlife), so people tend to make stuff up to fill in gaps.

[-] 1 points by fiftyfourforty (1077) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Yes. I also think and have read it said by non believers that the human brain is physically wired for belief. In my life I've been in several tight squeezes and close calls and in those moments I have found myself "wishing" "hoping" and "praying". To who or what? God I guess.

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

A small amount of people still believe in vampires. "To who or what?" Who knows, maybe you were preying to a creature of the night.

[-] 1 points by fiftyfourforty (1077) from New York, NY 2 years ago

They say there are no atheists in foxholes. I long thought myslef an atheist. Now I do believe there is a "higher power" but I doubt it follows me and my misadventures or cares what i say about it.

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

Conan the Barbarian believed in a similar god. God puts you in the world. After that, the rest is up to you.

[-] 1 points by fiftyfourforty (1077) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Explaining Einstein's understanding of God as the Universe / Reality http://www.spaceandmotion.com/albert-einstein-god-religion-theology.htm A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty - it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man. (Albert Einstein)

I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. (Albert Einstein, 1954)

I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings. (Albert Einstein)

[-] 0 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

must god be a divisive issue ?

[-] 1 points by fiftyfourforty (1077) from New York, NY 2 years ago

God people have made it so for millennia.

[-] 1 points by writerconsidered123 (344) 2 years ago

agree all is a dangerous. however I try to ask this question is someone or some institution trying to impose their will on someone else? include members of their own sect ? that is the benchmark of wisdom

[-] 1 points by JPB950 (2254) 2 years ago

I think all religions impose a set of beliefs, religious groups are not democratic. If you join you accept the dogma. You can hardly be a good Jew or Moslem if you believe in several gods for example. To be part of a religious group you have to accept certain things as dogma, many Christian denominations have the Nicene Creed that identifies basic dogma for the faithful.

[-] 0 points by fiftyfourforty (1077) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Mormonism is a paramilitary cult dedicated to establishing a theocracy. Romney is descendant of one of their original hustler profits and he takes seriously that he is perhaps destined by god in Kolob to set this planet right.

[-] 0 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

According to Mormon bishop Glenn Pace, there are some really weird things going on within the Mormon church:

Satanic Rituals within Mormonism http://saintsalive.com/resourcelibrary/mormonism/satanic-rituals-within-mormonism

So says the Salt Lake Tribune.

[-] 1 points by fiftyfourforty (1077) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Arturo, you keep coming back with this stuff about Satanic Rituals within Mormonism. I think that could discredit what is known and is not disputable about Mormonism so I am not going to put it into my website. What is clear and open about Mormonism is damaging enough.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

That's fair enough.

In High School my best friend was a Mormon, he was one of the nicest people I have ever known. Its hard for me to reconcile that with what I've read from Bishop Pace.

The satanic mode appears to be something that occurs in various organized crime groups. Some may remember this case of a satanic drug trafficking group reported by Fox News some years ago:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IO7WtTJfmLE

The American drug trafficking families that exported opium to China during the Opium Wars are reported to have been comparatively wealthier than today's technology moguls. Their descendents are some of the wealthiest families in America today. Similarly, some claim that they operated in the satanic mode.

[-] 1 points by fiftyfourforty (1077) from New York, NY 2 years ago

No doubt what you say could be true. If Satanism is so prevalent among the PTB what would make the satanism of the Mormon inner circles different?

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

Perhaps they are not different. Satanism was supposedly introduced to the opium traffickers, who became America's super wealthy, through freemasonry. Joseph Smith was similarly a freemason, and was deeply involved in the occult.

[-] 1 points by fiftyfourforty (1077) from New York, NY 2 years ago

okay, so...

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

So, these "divisions" of satanism may work together in various ways, such as pornography, prostitution, drug trafficking, espionage, etc.

But, as their system breaks down, if we keep our wits about us, we may be able to rid ourselves of the influence of these people. I've heard it said by Ben Fulford, an ex-financial journalist for Fortune magazine in Japan, that if the banking system were ever audited and reorganized, we would be quite shocked to find what the money has been going to.

[-] 0 points by stevebol (1269) from Milwaukee, WI 2 years ago

Basically yes, they should be respected. We're going to need religion by the time the Tea Party and TPTB are done with us.

[-] 0 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago
[-] 1 points by fiftyfourforty (1077) from New York, NY 2 years ago

The Book of Mormon is their public face.

[-] -1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 2 years ago

You just posted a link to a musical designed to mock and make light of a religion as "proof" of what that religion believes? Wow. Do you view Jesus Christ Superstar as an accurate representation of Christianity at large?

You guys are dazzling in your ignorance.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

every subject is with in an environment

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

Should we respect all ideas including the idea that all ideas should not be respected?

All is a dangerous word.

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

A bit pedantic no? We should respect people of course. Even when they espouse something we disagree with. We can express disagreement respectfully but I think the best thing we can do for religion believers is to tell them we believe it is akin to fairytales, myths, just old stories meant to explain the unexplainable and to control the masses.

[-] 1 points by fiftyfourforty (1077) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Pedantic to notice that Mormons lie, and that they aim to establish a theocracy? Oh! Mercy!

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Mormonism is only a little wackier than most religions. I can't support Romney because he is clearly only gonna help the 1% corp elite. But I don't other religions are much better. At least mormonism has been relatively small, isolated and inconsequential.

[-] 1 points by fiftyfourforty (1077) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Often religions really do offer comfort and also a form of organization to the oppressed. Look at the Liberation Theology movement in Latin America and the Black Church and Martin Luther King here. Islam gave structure and unity to African peoples who were being colonized for example.

Mormonism though is in its origins a white power cult of the comfortable. That's still what it is.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Myths and fairytales. I have no patience for bronze age thinking that has been at the center of catastrophic death and destruction throughout all history. keep your rod and staff they no longer comfort me" B

[-] 2 points by fiftyfourforty (1077) from New York, NY 2 years ago

For reasons I do not comprehend billions of people do embrace magical thinking and ideas that fly in the face of logic and reason. Neither you nor I are gong to change that fact this year or even next year. It is what it is.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

What is important is that the 1% are still living fat and happy, after crashing the world economy. And still preying on the 99%. Religion is just an annoying obstacle. A distraction, a wedge issue. It bores me.

[-] 1 points by fiftyfourforty (1077) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Religions serve as political organizing centers and so cannot be ignored by people who are really political in the sense that they have objectives they aspire to and who are really in it to win it. For one recent and outstanding example the Mormon Church was the main organizing center for the right wing campaign in California to deny what is now called marriage equality. They were so to the extent that they got caught violating California law.

http://morgantown.backpage.com/LegalServices/mormons-proposition-8-and-same-sex-marriage/1338017

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Yeah I remember. Good example of why we should denounce religion. It is misused by people for horrible reasons.

[-] 1 points by fiftyfourforty (1077) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Okay, but if Mormonism is a clear and present danger what the hell is wrong with telling that to people?

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

You have every right to tell people about the dangerous mormons. I don't see the danger as clearly as you do. They seem more fringey to me. So I think you run the risk of being labeled alarmist, conspiratorial, and such. I won't say that about you. When I hear about Mormon problems I am compelled to state the dangers of all religion. But you go on telling people about the mormon danger. I support your right.

[-] 2 points by fiftyfourforty (1077) from New York, NY 2 years ago

"So I think you run the risk of being labeled alarmist, conspiratorial, and such."

I'm too old (67) and too ordinary to care about my reputation. I'd rather tell the truth as i see it.

[-] -1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

my first friend was a mormon

[-] 0 points by EndTwoPartyTyranny (14) 2 years ago

"The word bipartisan means some larger-than-usual deception is being carried out."--George Carlin

[-] -1 points by friendlyopposition (574) 2 years ago

"I think the best thing we can do for religion believers is to tell them we believe it is akin to fairytales"

Why do you feel the need to tell them anything? If people's beliefs aren't harming you - why should you care what they believe. If someone's beliefs are harming you, deal with the behavior. You act like you have some duty to free people from their religions. Why don't you just butt out of it?

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I think we each have a responsibility to help our fellow citizens. Especially if they are misguided by bronze era dogma. Whether or not it hurts me is not the measure. That would be incredibly selfish if I helped people only if it hurts me. You don't sound very religious. Thats good. but you can still help people by freeing them from the damaging beliefs that simply provides lines and justification to kill non believers.

[-] 1 points by friendlyopposition (574) 2 years ago

So, you agree then that it is also someone's responsibility to convert you over to their religion to "help" you, right? Who are you to say someone will be better off without religious beliefs? Again, if it isn't hurting you - it isn't any of your business.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

You sound hostile. I do not support converting people. That sounds like Spanish inquisitionish, The damage is mostly done to "the believer", but I believe in helping people regardless of how it affects me. Otherwise it would be simply selfserving. Doesn't religion create the means to demonize non believers? isn't that at the root of so much death and destruction today and throughout history? hasn't religion denied and slowed scientific acceptance (earth round, Sun center, evolution, Stem cell). These issues are enough. Add to that the misuse of religion to persecute homosexuals, and murder abortion doctors. Then add all the child molestation in the church, the taking of money from poor people to enrich televangilists. Would you let the "believers" stay ignorant and be victimized. Have some sympathy for you fellow man. Please help them understand, we no longer need these fairytales and religious leaders misuse these myths to get us to perpetrate crime after crime that the invisible old white man in the sky would cringe at. (if he existed) Ok?

[-] 2 points by friendlyopposition (574) 2 years ago

I'm sorry you aren't comfortable with the word 'convert.' But that is what you are talking about. You believe that religion is wrong and therefore you feel it is your responsibility to free people from their religion. There are religious people who think atheism is wrong and feel it is their responsibility to free you from your sin. There is no difference. I realize you have some negative opinions about religion, and some of it is well grounded - but just because you think you are right and think you have science on your side doesn't give you the high ground on this one.

I really don't want to get into a debate about the pros and cons of religion, it isn't relevant to this forum - and we would run out of replies before we got very deep into it. I just wanted to point out that if you think it is your responsibility to convince people that religion is mythology, you are no different than the evangelicals who are trying to convince you otherwise.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

No different"? Ha! That is simplistic. The crimes of people who misuse religion are enormous and profound. My limited efforts at helping people free themselves from the control of such evildoers pales in comparison. To suggest the fallacy that it is the same simply minimizes the centuries old crimes of these institutions of hate. We don't have to debate. I support freeing people and minimizing the power of bronze era myths, and I guess you support it. No prob. No debate necessary. We disagree!

[-] 1 points by friendlyopposition (574) 2 years ago

Good luck with your crusade.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Crusades are for christian wackos bent on death and destruction under the false belief that killing for Jesus would provide absolution for their past sins and guarentee entry to heaven. That is most definately the opposite of where I am. Is this what you support? Are you a religious fanatic? Is your way the only way? and is everyone else going to burn in hell?

[-] 1 points by friendlyopposition (574) 2 years ago

My original point was that you should leave people alone with their beliefs if they aren't harming you, and your response was that you have a responsibility to free people from the control of evil doers.

Which one of us sounds like a fanatic?

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I am not fanatic. Just want to help people see the light of rational thinking. Bring 'em into the 21st century. It's good for them, good for the population as a whole and would create a dawning of a new era of peace and progress. "Imagine no religion" JL PS- you didn't deny your position on the crusades you referenced. Does that mean you support them? You also didn't answer if you are a religious wacko. Are you? Am I going to hell?

[-] 1 points by friendlyopposition (574) 2 years ago

To answer your questions: No. No. I have no idea.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Of course I'm not goin' to hell!! 'cause..... Wait for it....... there ain't no hell!! Riiiight? Or are you one of those ............ "believers"? Free your mind. come away from the light! believe in yourself! Do the right thing because it is right not to avoid some punishment in the afterlife. You can do it. Throw the crutch away. We needed it when we weren't smart enough to explain the unexplainable.

[-] 1 points by friendlyopposition (574) 2 years ago

I love how condescending you are. Unfortunately, arrogrance is far too common on both sides of the theological argument. I'm not going to try to get you to believe what I believe. That isn't my concern.

I'm going to assume that you believe strictly in science. That the only things that exist are what we can see, feel, taste, hear and smell. That there are strict rules for our existence. I'm curious about your theory on the First Cause. Either the universe has always existed, or it sprang forth from nothing. I base the cause of my faith on the fact that something outside of my existence, something outside of my understanding caused this all to happen. We can debate whether it was a God, or an alien or who knows what - but for you to suggest that one time in the history of the universe the basic rules of matter were suspended...well, that sounds like a miracle to me.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

ad hominem

[-] 1 points by friendlyopposition (574) 2 years ago

G O A W A Y

Or at least stick to your own threads. You just post nonsense.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Well, killing a human is bad because we would be hurting someone. That seems self explanatory. We don't need a commandment to know that. It is also hurting the dead humans loved ones. causing pain is bad. Obviously. When I help people or witness others being helped I feel better because I am relieving someones misery. I know how it feels to be miserable, hungary, alone, homeless so doing good things to eleviate that makes us feel good. Life is special because we can think and help thoseworse off than us. it is a beautiful thing. But for me it's not about religion/faith. its about people helping people.

[-] 1 points by friendlyopposition (574) 2 years ago

(this is going to be very confusing for someone else to follow along as we work our way back up the page..hahah)

You say that it is self-explanatory, that it is obvious that hurting someone is bad. I don't think that sufficiently explains why you feel that way. Does the fact that we have evolved farther than a pig or a beetle make us more valuable? It shouldn't. Is granite more valuable than lime? Is a rose more valuable than a sunflower? If we are all just one big accident - then I don't see how we should consider ourselves (or each other) special.

[-] -1 points by salta (-1104) 2 years ago

how do you feel about late term abortion? when obama was in the illinois state govt he voted not give ANY medical assistance to a baby that survived a late term abortion. he voted to let the baby die. nice guy.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

It is natural to feel anxiety when another of your species is hurt or killed. Even non humans can experience this phenomenon as it allows for them to react (flee) when one is attacked. We go so far as to even attempt to help one another. The feelings are natural. Perhaps I am not smart enough to explain it but it does not prove there is a God.

[-] 1 points by friendlyopposition (574) 2 years ago

I agree that the feelings are natural. I also agree that it doesn't prove that there is a God. Where we will disagree is how it became part of our nature. To me it is just an indication, another clue, that there is something beyond what we can see.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Yeah but I remove any outside force from our day to day life. Too much misuse of religion. No one is watching over us. No one waiting in the clouds. Do the right thing because it is the right thing. It is it's own reward.

[-] 1 points by friendlyopposition (574) 2 years ago

Why is doing the right thing a reward? I only have 100 years or so on this planet, if I'm lucky, and I'm just going to return to dust when it is done. Why not get all I can for myself? Why do I feel better when I do good things? Evolution? Evolution doesn't work for us anymore, because we can choose to ignore it. Making a decision not to have children (which is everyone's right), goes against evolution. I mean, look at some of the people who are breeding...hardly our finest specimens :)

Some say we all sprang from nothingness, and then because of some freak chemical reaction, life was started. And then through this odd chain of accidents and random mutations we got to where we are - then what is so special about life? What is the difference in me banging two rocks together or banging together a rock and a human head? What is the difference in smashing a rock, cutting down a tree, squashing a spider, shooting a dog, or killing a human? Matter is matter, who cares whether it can talk or not.

I believe in a sanctity of life because there is something different about us. There is something special about a) having life and b) being human. There is a reason we feel good about doing the right thing. There is something that links us all together.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Who knows how the universe began. I have considered the big bang theory (funny show) and how an outside force may have been at play. but I don't make the leap to the bronze age thinking that has been at the center of cataclysmic death and destruction throughout history. Can't do it. Sorry. But I have just read an article (science mag) about how they are about to identify the Higgs Boson (god particle) particle. So that may help us understand universal beginnings a little better.

[-] 2 points by stevebol (1269) from Milwaukee, WI 2 years ago

I agree. The 6,000 year old theory is based on the concept of time being non-linear. I believe the universe is somewhere between 6,000 and an infinite number of years old. But really, who cares?

[-] 1 points by friendlyopposition (574) 2 years ago

I'm not asking you to believe in any "bronze age mythology" - I'm satisfied with you considering an outside force.

[-] 2 points by friendlyopposition (574) 2 years ago

Sorry Matt, for the most part, I just ignore your posts.

[-] 1 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

Interesting choice of words... crusade. How many centuries of war and death did the Crusades culminate in?

[-] 1 points by friendlyopposition (574) 2 years ago

You can go a lot of different directions with animosity towards religion, but I don't suggest using a body count as one of them.

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

As an atheist, I sort of agree with this remark. I mean, who knows whether or not humans would have found other reasons to burn each other alive, if religion didn't exist. After all, the crusades, inquisition, etc., all occurred in our prescientific era, and during those times, there were a panoply of bizarre belief systems even more draconian and blood thirsty than any of the Abrahamic religions. However, we no longer in a prescientific era, we have no excuse to look at something like lighting and imagine some godlike figure (like Thor) tossing lighting bolts at us. So when people blow themselves up and take countless people down with them, all based on the fable of a 7th century sage who supposedly had an encounter with a divine spirit while meditating in a cave, or cultists who think it's okay to collect child wives, it is proper for us to call it what it is .... fucking absurd (and we shouldn't have to tolerate this shit based on some misguided interpretation of political correctness or whatever). Likewise, people should acclimate themselves with objective reality, and when we encounter stories like the man alone on a mountaintop who supposedly had a meaningful conversation with a burning bush, our default position should be to view the story for what it is, mythology.

[-] 1 points by friendlyopposition (574) 2 years ago

I'm glad you can at least acknowledge that we don't know where we would be without religion, because we don't have that reality to compare ourselves to. It is easy to say that we would be better off if no one believed in any gods - but we don't really know. It could be that we would have evolved into peaceful, loving, forgiving and understanding people - or maybe we could have disregarded the value of life as some sort of bizarre chemical reaction and justified untold atrocities upon one another. We just don't know. I can say, with some certainty, that we are a strange and demented beast. You can easily find evidence in how we have perverted religion, perverted an economic system, and perverted a social system to get to where we are today. I'm not sure if religion or evolution is to blame.

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

Religion! How it dominates man's mind, how it humiliates and degrades his soul. God is everything, man is nothing, says religion. But out of that nothing God has created a kingdom so despotic, so tyrannical, so cruel, so terribly exacting that naught but gloom and tears and blood have ruled the world since gods began. Anarchism rouses man to rebellion against this black monster. Break your mental fetters, says Anarchism to man, for not until you think and judge for yourself will you get rid of the dominion of darkness, the greatest obstacle to all progress.

Emma Goldman, Anarchism and Other Essays

http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/goldman/Writings/Anarchism/anarchism.html

[-] 1 points by friendlyopposition (574) 2 years ago

I don't think anarchy would have helped us progress farther as a society...but of course, we don't have a world driven by anarchy to compare it to. I guess we'll never know.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

decimate Look up decimate at Dictionary.com

on Greek Roman Classical Times

c.1600, in reference to the practice of punishing mutinous military units by capital execution of one in every 10, by lot; from L. decimatus, pp. of decimare (see decimation). Killing one in ten, chosen by lots, from a rebellious city or a mutinous army was a common punishment in classical times. The word has been used (incorrectly, to the irritation of pedants) since 1660s for "destroy a large portion of." Related: Decimated; decimating.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=decimate

[-] 0 points by friendlyopposition (574) 2 years ago

Good job. Working on your vocabulary, I see. And how is this post related to religion, the crusades, or any other part of this discussion?

I try to ignore your posts, but sometimes they are just so bizarre that I can't resist.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

War happened before the crusades 500 BC

Decimation is a sort of body count

[-] 1 points by friendlyopposition (574) 2 years ago

Yes. War has been around a very long time.

[-] 1 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

Only because of the relative size of the body counts? Politicians have undoubtedly killed more people than religion has. Being less evil than your competitor in a killing competition doesn't make you the good guy.

[-] 1 points by friendlyopposition (574) 2 years ago

I'm not sure of your point here.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

I Believe the US "Goes to War for Democracy"

when war has nothing to do with democracy

scribble detrimental to trust necessary in democracy for the minority protection scratch

[-] 3 points by friendlyopposition (574) 2 years ago

You really shouldn't try to explain other's intentions...you can rarely explain your own.

[-] 0 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

ad hominem

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

Do you respect all human beings? Everyone?

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I try. but I'm sure I haven't always. I'm sure I won't always in the future. Then again I'm not the measure. I am not a role model. My statement was "we should respect people" as opposed to views. I suppose some people do not deserve respect, or may lose respect. There are always exceptions to every rule. but that is a distraction from the wider point. a bit pedantic no?

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (25009) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Yep - monsters are not people - so - I guess you need to rethink your follow-up.

I respect and support all people.

Not monsters though - they only wear the guise of being people.

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

How do you figure out which children are monsters and which are human?

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (25009) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Same as identifying adults that are monsters - only children tend to be more flighty and unpredictable due to their lack of experience - their naivety.

There are fewer child monsters though as life can have debilitating affects as one grows older in experience if not knowledge.

But there are those born with a social dysfunction - and as far as I know - there is no cure - only hiding.

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

Why don't you just scan the QR Code?

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (25009) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

What???????????????????????????