--- In [email protected], "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote: <snip> > Although the point seems obvious we see the results of > not remembering that fact all over. And it is hard to > shake. Not that I am advocating a rigid life ruled only > by reason. But in areas of claims that have traditionally > been let off the hook for any challenge on the basis of > reason, like where spirituality makes claims about the > world, I want to re-introduce it as a possibility. > > For example what if historians could prove that Joseph > Smith's claims about finding golden tablets with > instructions was historically false? Wouldn't that be > as reasonable as challenging holocaust deniers on the > basis of facts? But such an inquiry would be condemned > as being religious bigotry.
By whom?? Other than Mormons, that is? > Other religious people, who think the claim is nonsense > themselves, would fight to protect this belief from such > scrutiny on the principle of leaving all religious claims > in a protected category where reason can never enter. Um, no. Maybe some would, but a good deal of the actual scrutiny has come from representatives of other faiths. > It is the only area of human knowledge where we take the > position in society that if you state it, no on can > challenge it on the basis of facts. We who?? You're painting with much too broad a brush here and stepping on your own point. There are seven separate Wikipedia pages that challenge the claims about the Book of Mormon on the basis of facts: Historical authenticity of the Book of Mormon; Criticism of the Book of Mormon; Archaeology and the Book of Mormon; Genetics and the Book of Mormon; Linguistics and the Book of Mormon; Origin of the Book of Mormon; and Book of Mormon Anachronisms. The Book of Mormon is a very poor example to support your position, since the claims made for it are not just historical but very recently historical compared to those of other religions, so they're significantly more vulnerable to factual scrutiny. And goodness knows there's an enormous amount of historical scholarship challenging various historical claims made in the Bible (both the Christian and Hebrew scriptures). Fundamentalists may feel such challenge is bigoted, but more liberal Christians and Jews don't mind it much and may even inform themselves about it. If you want to make a point about religious beliefs having a protected status in this society, you'd do much better to cite faith-based claims that are difficult or impossible to prove or disprove, such as Mary's virginity or any other miracle story. Even some nonreligious people wince when such beliefs are subject to hostile challenge. Seems (to me) fruitless and pointless. If a religious person tries to impose such a belief on you, that's a different story, of course. You're fully entitled in that situation to let them have it with both barrels as to why you find the belief absurd. And you're also entitled to challenge beliefs that have negative effects on others, such as about the sinfulness of homosexuality (which many more liberal religionists do as well). > In the same way it is religious moderates, not extremists > who are causing the most problems in society by forcing > society to conform to what they think God wants and that > they can uniquely interpret for the rest of us. Society > seems happy to spot a Hare Krishna and not base public > policy on their odd beliefs but if you put a Mormon in a > suit, he might become president. (The same type of argument was made against JFK, of course.) Which odd beliefs of Mormonism--as opposed to beliefs any conservative would be likely to hold--do you think Romney might base public policy on if he were elected? And while I'm at it, where do you draw the line between "moderate" religionists and "extremist" religionists? It seems to me that the most problems are caused by right- wing evangelicals and fundamentalists, including some conservative Catholics. Would they be moderates or extremists, in your view?
