Runtu wrote:wenglund wrote:I note that you are drawing a meaningless distinction, mistakenly calling it a "conflation", in a failed attempt at rationalizing certain bigotted attitudes and behaviors. Obviously, religions are comprised of people, they are founded and lead by people, they are believed and practiced by people, they are evangelized by people. And, religious beliefs are at the very core of religious people's world view. It is, to some degree, the very essence of who and what they are and stand for, and what guides and direct their lives (what you prejudicially call "manipulation"). Without people, religions would be...well, meaningless. In other words, when you "deplore" or "deeply resent" religion in general, you unavoidably deplore and resent religious people in general.
It is not unlike were a religionist to say: "I deeply resent and deplore science in general. Don't get me wrong, I love scientist, but it is just that I resent how science is used to manipulate people. In a way, all science is manipulative. Westerners just happen to come from one of the more manipulitive paradigms, and it tends to color their attitudes towards the teaching and practices of other scientific paradigms, but not their people.
That's nonsense.
Besides, to say that people are being "manipulated", is to also unavoidably say something about them--clearly something less than flattering, though certainly steroetypical. Thanks, -Wade Englund-
A couple of points, Wade. Your analogy fails in that it is entirely possible to deplore science and yet not deplore scientists.
Of course it is possible. There are a variety of irrational and ignorant ways of doing just that.
But, the analogy wasn't intended to deny this possibility, but rather to challenge the reasonableness in so thinking. I am suggesting that it is reasonable to conclude that "deep resentment" towards science is tantamount to "deep resentment" for the scientists who formulated and developed science, as well as the scientists who embrace, utilize, and are guided by science. The same is true for religion and religionists (see below). So, the analogies succeeded.
It is equally possible to deplore the practices and teachings of certain religions without deploring those who believe in them. For example, I deplore the Jehovah's Witnesses' teaching against blood transfusions, as people have died because of it, but I do not resent or harbor even the remotest dislike for people who believe in that religion. Again, Wade, it is not bigoted to disagree, even vehemently, with a doctrine or set of doctrines. I'm not sure why you can't grasp that.
First of all, I am not some much talking about specific beliefs and practices of a given religion, nor am I talking about disagreement over doctrines or sets of doctrines. What I am talking about is "deep resentment" towards religion in general being tantamount to "deep resentment" towards religionists in general. I am questioning the reasonablness of viewing religion and religionist in a discrete way in terms of that "deep resentment".
To better illustrate the unreasonableness of your's and now Beasties's position (since my SUV analogy may not have produced cognition), let's take as one example of the general "deep resentment", your deploring the teaching against blood transfusion. And, for the sake of argument, let's do as you suggest and separate that teaching from the people by supposing that no people knew of that teaching, or better yet no people have or would accept or abide that teaching, and thus no people will have been, or ever be, harmed or died because of it. Would you still deplore the teaching under that hypothetical case?
I don't see how anyone reasonably could. What would there be to deplore?
This suggest to me that it is not the teaching, itself, that is deplored, but the PEOPLE who have interpreted it and used it in ways that you deplore. In reality, and unavoidably, and essentially, you deplore Jehovah's Witnesses for practicing a belief that has resulted in death. Similarly, when Beastie expresses "deep resentment" for religion in general, and provides several people-based examples as justification for her "deep resentment", she is unavoidably and essentially expressing "deep resentment" for religionist in general.
Why does this simple and obvious point continue to elude you?
And for another thing, we are manipulated all the time by politicians, advertisements, and in fact just about any kind of communication. It doesn't say anything stereotypical about human beings to say that the human manipulation of other humans happens all the time.
Your right, manipulation may occur in a variety of human situations, and in that generic sense, it is not stereotyping. However, that is a far cry from the selectively sweeping and prejudical way in which Beastie used it. She essentially painted religion in general (or in other words religionists in general) as manipulative in a way she "deeply resented". That is classic stereotyping.
Why can't you see that?
It might be well to avoid treating this discussion as a personal attack on yourself and other Mormons. It isn't, and never has been.
It would be better still if you didn't speculatively ascribe false perceptions to me (like the above). I haven't treated the discussion as a personal attack. Rather, I have treated it as explicitly stated: clear evidence of Beasties bigotry towards religion in general.
Thanks, -Wade Englund-