--- In [email protected], "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@...>
wrote:
>
> --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote:
> >
> > --- 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?
>
> By society as a whole or otherwise Mormonism would be
> discredited as a POV rather than respected as a major
> religion. It is a protected class of beliefs where
> historical facts do not change society's view as it
> has on say witchcraft.
No, these are not mutually exclusive. It is not considered
bigotry throughout society to question Mormon beliefs, and
yet Mormonism is generally respected as a major religion.
> > > 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
>
> They all band together to protect their intellectual
> exemption. Challenges to the fundamentals of religion
> are considered bigotry.
As I say, perhaps by some (especially Mormons), but by no
means by all religionists.
> In fact you are fond of throwing out that term when people
> here challenge the fundamentals of spirituality or mock
> beliefs.
Nasty mockery, yes. But I myself challenge some of the
fundamentals, and I don't consider myself a bigot.
> > > 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??
>
> So you are unaware of the protected status of religion as
> a field of belief and knowledge?
Disingenuous. Who takes the position in society that if
you state it, no one can challenge it on the basis of
facts?
People challenge religious statements on the basis of
facts all the time.
> Check the tax codes as a starting point.
Non sequitur. Tax codes neither challenge nor refrain
from challenging beliefs on the basis of facts.
> Tear up a picture of the pope on national TV like Sinead.
She had a lot of defenders as well as detractors. It
was a protest against priestly child abuse, after all.
> No politician can get elected in this country if he dares
> question that miracles happened 2000 years ago and were
> accurately recorded over 60 years after the death of that
> miracle worker.
"Can't get elected" is not the same as "nobody will vote
for him or her." (I might well not vote for such a person,
however, if he or she made the questioning part of his or
her campaign.)
> > 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.
>
> Exactly my point.
No, the point I'm addressing is your claim that questioning
religious beliefs is considered bigotry throughout society.
<snip>
> > 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.
>
> That actually makes it the best example of my point.
No, the point I'm addressing is your claim that questioning
religious beliefs is considered bigotry throughout society.
<snip>
> > 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.
>
> Yes and none of this has dethroned these beliefs from the
> special status they hold in society.
No, the point I'm addressing is your claim that questioning
religious beliefs is considered bigotry throughout society.
You don't want to acknowledge that that claim was way too
sweeping, so you substitute another one that I haven't
challenged.
> > > 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.)
>
> This seems like a good point. He is unlikely to be any less
> wacky than George Bush with regard to religiously biased
> decisions. Point taken.
He who? Romney?
> > 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?
>
> We would all be required to wear magic underwear for one.
> It would become law and we would have to wear it on the
> outside of our clothes so the government could check.
I assume you're making a joke here because you can't
actually think of any odd beliefs of Mormonism that
aren't widely shared by conservatives on which President
Romney might base public policy.
> > 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?
>
> I think the range is found in every group. I have met
> fundamentalists who are politically moderate and don't
> want to force their choices on others.
IOW, they're neither "moderate" nor "extremist" religionists,
according to your definition above ("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").
So what *would* you call them?
> But as a culture we in the US are too protective of this
> class of beliefs.
You're entitled to that opinion. (Freedom of religion does
happen to be guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, of course.)
> I favor the view in some of the countries
> in Europe where it is not assumed that people making idiotic
> claims in religion should not be held to the same scrutiny as
> any other claims. It is a societal pressure that is the
> opposite of here in the US where no one can get elected
> unless they claim to have a relationship with an invisible all
> powerful friend.
Again, "not get elected" is not the same as "nobody will
vote for him or her." (And you'd be in more solid ground
to phrase it "claim to believe in a higher power").
There's nothing wrong with your basic claim ("too protective
of religious beliefs"), as a personal opinion. But the
ancillary claims you make in support just don't hold water.
You ought to thank me for helping you get the bugs out of
your argument.
