CWK #32: Anti-Mormonism

[I Have Questions]

I don't approve of calling out specific groups, especially minority groups, to prejudice others against them.

You mean like labelling gay people akin to pedaphiles, and waging a covert campaign against same sex marriage? The Church has earned its reputation for being untrustworthy.

[Kishkumen]

You mean like labelling gay people akin to pedaphiles, and waging a covert campaign against same sex marriage?

Yeah, like that. And THAT kind of thing is perfectly within the realm of criticizable, regardless of who engages in it. But that is really not what the Tanners are doing, is it?

[I Have Questions]

You mean like labelling gay people akin to pedaphiles, and waging a covert campaign against same sex marriage?

Yeah, like that. And THAT kind of thing is perfectly within the realm of criticizable, regardless of who engages in it.

And this is why I struggle to understand you. Why is a crusade against the Church okay in that instance, but not okay in terms of, say, the veracity of its origin story?

[Kishkumen]

And this is why I struggle to understand you. Why is a crusade against the Church okay in that instance, but not okay in terms of, say, the veracity of its origin story?

You are comparing apples and oranges, my friend. Why do you think political persecution of minorities is the same as a foundation myth? That is the real question.

[I Have Questions]

And this is why I struggle to understand you. Why is a crusade against the Church okay in that instance, but not okay in terms of, say, the veracity of its origin story?

You are comparing apples and oranges, my friend. Why do you think political persecution of minorities is the same as a foundation myth? That is the real question.

Because one has led to the other. The foundational scripture to this day promotes the racist idea that black skin came about as a sign of divine disfavour. A campaign against that foundational scripture is equally justified. Or do you disagree?

[Kishkumen]

Because one has led to the other. The foundational scripture to this day promotes the racist idea that black skin came about as a sign of divine disfavour. A campaign against that foundational scripture is equally justified. Or do you disagree?

How could the Abolition movement have been so Christian when the Bible treats slavery as an accepted norm?

[I Have Questions]

Because one has led to the other. The foundational scripture to this day promotes the racist idea that black skin came about as a sign of divine disfavour. A campaign against that foundational scripture is equally justified. Or do you disagree?

How could the Abolition movement have been so Christian when the Bible treats slavery as an accepted norm?

Why are you answering a question with a question?

[Marcus]

If, let's say, Richard Dawkins were to engage in a crusade against Mormonism, I would have a problem with that.

Why? Why should Mormonism (or any religious faith) be exempt from a campaign aimed at disproving some of the falsehoods perpetrated by institutional Mormonism as far as you’re concerned?

Without campaigns against Mormonism, plural marriage would not have ended, blacks would not hold the Priesthood, women wouldn’t be invited to sit on the stand, Proposition 8 might have been successful and the Church’s covert machinations in their crusade against same sex marriage wouldn’t have come to light. For example.

Also, what about this very thread and its 'crusade' against the Tanners? Anti-Mormonism is at least as sacred as the sacred cow of Mormonism. The argument that the facts of the Tanner anti- crusade shouldn't be publicized is no different than the argument that the facts about the Mormon religion shouldn't be publicized. (Assuming that publicizing facts in disagreement with a thing is defined as a crusade against a thing.)

(I feel like there's a sequel to the movie Idiocracy in here somewhere.
"All facts debunking non-facts are no longer allowed, on the grounds that they constitute an attack on the people who believe the non-facts!" )

[Kishkumen]

Why are you answering a question with a question?

Because I am inviting you to think things through a little more.

[Kishkumen]

Also, what about this very thread and its 'crusade' against the Tanners?

Your scare quotes are confusing. Do you consider this thread a crusade against the Tanners? For me this has always been an articulation of my disagreement with the Tanners, not a crusade against them. Is explaining why you disagree with someone intolerable for some reason? Is it now tantamount to a crusade against them?