DiscussMormonism.com

hauslern wrote: ↑

Sat Jun 03, 2023 6:27 am

If seminary is conducted in school buildings would that mean in that instant they can bring the Bible into school?

The seminary buildings are owned by the LDS Church.

And off campus.

Res Ipsa wrote: ↑

Fri Jun 02, 2023 10:40 pm

honorentheos wrote: ↑

Fri Jun 02, 2023 6:59 pm

David Brooks wrote an interesting piece for The Atlantic regarding liberalism taken to an extreme on both poles of the American political spectrum where "classic liberal" and "progressive liberal" may be applied to folks on the right and left, respectively. Seems like it has some bearing here:

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/ar ... id/673790/

<snip>

Thanks for linking to that piece. It puts a structure around thoughts I've had over the years but have never been able to pull together in a coherent whole. Definitely worth reading and thinking about.

No problem. I felt much the same way.

malkie wrote: ↑

Fri Jun 02, 2023 11:10 pm

The author of the article dissects assisted suicide through the opposing lenses of gifts-based liberalism and autonomy-based liberalism, and to me comes down very clearly and strongly on the gifts-based side.

I lack the intellect and the energy to apply a similar analysis to other societal issues, but I suspect that David Brooks might likewise see a better argument for forcing an unwilling woman to give birth than for permitting her to choose whether to terminate her pregnancy.

I'd be happy to read the thoughts of other board members on the application of the dueling liberalisms to abortion rights, and other issues such as the death penalty, helping the less fortunate in society, etc.

Anyone up for it?

I like the approach, but it’s hard for me to generalize it. Before I read Brooks’ piece, I would have described the two views as Liberalism and hyper-individualism does not. I would have described the difference between the two as linking rights with responsibilities. Liberalism recognizes a link, as illustrated by the reference to On Liberty. Hyper-individualism does not.

Brooks makes that idea sounds more attractive by grounding ties to others in gratitude rather than duty. One doesn’t take into account the effect of one’s actions because they have to — they do so because they want to.

Churlish post-modernist that I am, I tend to think of the issue in terms of irreconcilable conflict between individual and group identities. We both want our individuality to be protected from groups and want groups to protect us from other individuals (and groups). We want the ability to decide how to live happy, fulfilling lives without interference by others and have the ability to live happy, fulfilling lives through community.

Brooks’ approach is much more satisfying than mine.

The buildings really aren’t the issue. Our local high school has been rented out to various congregations over time. A restrictions on which school libraries the Bible can be in would not affect bringing a Bible to a religious service held in school buildings.

Res Ipsa wrote: ↑

Sat Jun 03, 2023 2:13 pm

malkie wrote: ↑

Fri Jun 02, 2023 11:10 pm

The author of the article dissects assisted suicide through the opposing lenses of gifts-based liberalism and autonomy-based liberalism, and to me comes down very clearly and strongly on the gifts-based side.

I lack the intellect and the energy to apply a similar analysis to other societal issues, but I suspect that David Brooks might likewise see a better argument for forcing an unwilling woman to give birth than for permitting her to choose whether to terminate her pregnancy.

I'd be happy to read the thoughts of other board members on the application of the dueling liberalisms to abortion rights, and other issues such as the death penalty, helping the less fortunate in society, etc.

Anyone up for it?

I like the approach, but it’s hard for me to generalize it. Before I read Brooks’ piece, I would have described the two views as Liberalism and hyper-individualism does not. I would have described the difference between the two as linking rights with responsibilities. Liberalism recognizes a link, as illustrated by the reference to On Liberty. Hyper-individualism does not.

Brooks makes that idea sounds more attractive by grounding ties to others in gratitude rather than duty. One doesn’t take into account the effect of one’s actions because they have to — they do so because they want to.

Churlish post-modernist that I am, I tend to think of the issue in terms of irreconcilable conflict between individual and group identities. We both want our individuality to be protected from groups and want groups to protect us from other individuals (and groups). We want the ability to decide how to live happy, fulfilling lives without interference by others and have the ability to live happy, fulfilling lives through community.

Brooks’ approach is much more satisfying than mine.

Thanks, Res.

I mostly like what you say about the individual and the group, except that I wonder if it may be more fruitful to think of the relationship as symbiosis, rather than conflict.

I am OK with the idea that I benefit from certain group memberships, but don't think that either duty or gratitude for the group's protection of my individuality should cause me to accept any and all intrusions of group practices and beliefs into my life.

When I completed high school (in Scotland, at the time, I don't think there was any such thing as "graduating" from anything other than a post-secondary institution - when you were done with HS, you just left), I objected in principle to the requirement of attending an end-of-school church service. I even wrote a letter of protest to the local newspaper.

The results:

• the headmaster told me that I could choose to not attend the service, but that I would then forfeit the certificates I had earned, and would thus be unable to accept the offers I had received from the universities I had applied to
• a woman replied to my letter to tell me that I should be happy to attend the service because of all of the benefits I had from living in a "Christian" country

My father advised me against replying to the woman's letter, and I took his advice. I wanted, however, to tell her that I didn't think that being born in a nominally Christian country should oblige me to follow the religion, or even to pay lip service to it. Almost 60 years later I still feel the same.

Overall that makes me more of an individual rights believer than a group obligation/gratitude adherent.

I'm immensely grateful to live in a liberal democracy (Canada), but I'm not a 'my country right or wrong' person, much less a 'my society right or wrong' person.

But I am open to arguments.

Looks like the Bible will be brought back as the ban has been reversed.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/u ... r-AA1cQ4uN