Confused and concerned and definitely saddened.

[yjacket]

Refusing service based on sexual orientation is persecution, just as it would be if we were refused service for being Mormons. Using terms that are known to be offensive slurs and disregarding the feelings of those that the words are directed toward is not being a person of goodwill. Calling those things what they are- hateful, or at least spiteful, is not being contentious. It is advocating for the counsel we're being given from our Church leaders.

 

I will do must best to be as logical as possible without killing the thread (I enjoy the debate but don't like to be the last word).

 

I am very passionate about things and a firebrand at times . . .. ah Patrick Henry a good guy.  Things that will really get me riled up is infringement of my liberties (and modifying my posts without consent :-) -which could be interpreted as a modification of posts with an agenda).

 

I personally defend the "undefendables", I get hit from conservatives and liberals alike.

 

As far as persecution goes, I know what it feels likes and I know what it is, I also know what it isn't.  I've had death threats written to me.  Rocks thrown at cars, derogatory comments, etc that's persecution.  With comments as with most things, context is extremely important.  For example, a black man can say the "n" word and it's cool, but a white guy says it and it's not cool.  If I'm going to sling some insults around, trust me you'll know it.  Otherwise, it is called taking offense where none is intended, and that is just as much a sin as being offensive.

 

Your definition of persecution is illogical. Based upon the definition that refusal of service is persecution the LDS church persecutes.  The church refuses the services of being married in the temple to homosexuals; by your definition the Church persecutes.  In the release, the Church implicitly recognizes the right to refuse service based on sexual preference.  The Church compromised (i.e. gave up fighting for) the rights of individuals that provide housing and restaurant services to homosexuals.  In exchange for that the Church is asking for the right to "persecute" (your words) homosexuals in relation to Church employment.  The Church has many private organizations that are not 100% pastor related, i.e. BYU, Deseret Books, etc. The Church compromised on fighting for the rights of all to discriminate in hopes that they will be able to discriminate based on sexual preference with regards to Church related private entities.

 

Furthermore, several examples were mentioned one in particular about a doctor performing artificial insemination having the right to refuse service. Under your definition that doctor is "persecuting" homosexuals.

 

Finally, while money is the major form of tangible exchange (i.e. I give you x and you give me y), it isn't the only form of exchange.  Why do people get married?  An exchange goes on in the process of getting married, while money isn't generally traded for it other things are traded.  For example, marriage implies first off generally some form of sex, it implies moral support, it implies physical and financial support.  

 

Claiming that refusing service is persecution is like unto saying that a tall woman is persecuting the short man for refusing his hand in marriage.  It is the same argument that is given by the petulant teenager, "mom you won't let me have xyz, you are depriving me of my childhood, you are causing me from wikipedia "The inflicting of suffering, harassment, isolation, imprisonment, internment, fear, or pain are all factors that may establish persecution"

 

It boils down to freedom of association.  Your definition says that because I don't like to associate with smokers I am persecuting them.  You are ultimately claiming that it is morally justifiable to kill someone for refusing service to a homosexual.

 

The reason why I say kill someone, is that that is what law is really about.  Law is about when can someone else kill you. If I refuse service to a homosexual you believe I should be fined or sued.  If I disagree with the suit and don't pay the fine, I will have an arrest warrant put out. If I don't obey the warrant, the cops will come get me, if I don't obey the cops I will be killed.  The ultimate backing behind all law is force and the backing behind force is death.

 

Some laws are just laws that yes the ultimate penalty is death.  Some of those laws involve when one individual has physically aggressed against another.  I am whole-heartedly in favor of forcing another individual at the point of a gun (i.e. threat of death) to stand trail and accept punishment when they physically aggress against another human being.

 

Should an individual provide housing and food to homosexuals, from a human perspective probably.  I'm 100% okay for advocacy of those things, of persuasion, i.e. of persuading those who provide housing and food to do so for all individuals.  I'm 100% against the use of force to do so. It is not morally right to force someone to provide housing at the point of depriving the individual who refuses their livelihood.

[bytor2112]

The whole homosexual thing has me worn thin and I have very little patience for any of it. I respect and sustain our leaders and recognize they and many of you are likely much further down the Christ like compassionate road than I. 

 

We have had SO many threads on this forum on gay this or gay that and I suppose I could refrain from reading them or posting....but.....my resistance is weak.

Edited January 29, 2015 by bytor2112

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

I generally don't like getting the last word in online discussions...it means you've killed the thread!   

(sometimes)

 

I'm so paranoid, if I don't have the last word it feels like giving up, but if I do get the last word I think I've killed the thread.  It's a lose-lose for me, LOL!

[Guest Godless]

I generally don't like getting the last word in online discussions...it means you've killed the thread!

(sometimes)

I like to think of it as more of a mic drop.

Debate is a funny thing, especially in a forum where religion and politics are often tackled simultaneously. Generally speaking, we tend to debate religious topics delicately so as not to belittle a person's personal religious beliefs. Conversely, political discourse can get vicious and highly contentious because there's no deep-rooted emotional bond to our political views. There are many in my camp who would argue that the "kids gloves" should be removed when debating religion. I actually hold an opposite opinion, that social/political debate should hold more of the respectful tone that we see in religious discussions. Not because personal views should be respected (I sincerely don't believe that), but more out of respect for civil discourse. Without some degree of level-headedness, we're just impassioned degenerates screaming at a computer screen.

[PolarVortex]

Debate is a funny thing, especially in a forum where religion and politics are often tackled simultaneously. 

 

I've already mentioned one of Phyllis Diller's housekeeping hints (see "DIY cheap radiant heater" of November 2014), and it's time to share another.

 

Ms. Diller understood the enduring value of religion and politics.  She knew her cooking was atrocious, so whenever she had guests over for dinner she would move the conversation to religion and politics.  People would start fighting and wouldn't notice the low quality of the food.  They'd also blame their indigestion on the long, stormy quarrels with all the other people.

 

But I don't follow your comment about no deep-rooted emotional bond to our political views.  Most people I know here on the Pacific Coast have very deeply rooted emotional bonds to their political views.  I know some Democrats for whom a sex-change operation would be less disruptive than becoming a Republican.

[Guest Godless]

But I don't follow your comment about no deep-rooted emotional bond to our political views. Most people I know here on the Pacific Coast have very deeply rooted emotional bonds to their political views. I know some Democrats for whom a sex-change operation would be less disruptive than becoming a Republican.

I agree that I could have worded that better. Naturally, people feel some sort of emotional bond to their political beliefs, but it's a far less intimate bond than people have with their religious beliefs. It's difficult to pick apart the doctrines of a man (say, Jesus, for example) with whom the faithful claim to have a deep, personal, and spiritual relationship with. People have no such relationships with political figures. So while their beliefs are still rooted in emotion to a certain extent, there's less of an imperative to tread lightly. Basically, the nature of a debate tends to shift when issues of spirituality enter the equation. That's generally viewed as a sacred realm that is impervious to scrutiny, unlike the more intellectual realm of politics.

Edited January 29, 2015 by Godless

[The Folk Prophet]

When political beliefs are driven by religious beliefs then it can really hit the fan I suppose.

[Crypto]

I like to think of it as more of a mic drop.

Debate is a funny thing, especially in a forum where religion and politics are often tackled simultaneously. Generally speaking, we tend to debate religious topics delicately so as not to belittle a person's personal religious beliefs. Conversely, political discourse can get vicious and highly contentious because there's no deep-rooted emotional bond to our political views. There are many in my camp who would argue that the "kids gloves" should be removed when debating religion. I actually hold an opposite opinion, that social/political debate should hold more of the respectful tone that we see in religious discussions. Not because personal views should be respected (I sincerely don't believe that), but more out of respect for civil discourse. Without some degree of level-headedness, we're just impassioned degenerates screaming at a computer screen.

I can agree with the sentiment that we should avoid getting vicious when there are disagreements. 

[PolarVortex]

I agree that I could have worded that better. Naturally, people feel some sort of emotional bond to their political beliefs, but it's a far less intimate bond than people have with their religious beliefs. It's difficult to pick apart the doctrines of a man (say, Jesus, for example) with whom the faithful claim to have a deep, personal, and spiritual relationship with. People have no such relationships with political figures. So while their beliefs are still rooted in emotion to a certain extent, there's less of an imperative to tread lightly. Basically, the nature of a debate tends to shift when issues of spirituality enter the equation. That's generally viewed as a sacred realm that is impervious to scrutiny, unlike the more intellectual realm of politics.

 

Wow, my experience is totally different.  I know gobs and gobs of people who have switched religions, some several times, or toggled between theism and atheism, some several times as well.  With the exception of a few Republicans who become libertarians (moi) or a few Democrats who become Greens, I know almost nobody who has changed political party.  Your view of this is quite interesting, thanks.

[Guest]

I agree that I could have worded that better. Naturally, people feel some sort of emotional bond to their political beliefs, but it's a far less intimate bond than people have with their religious beliefs. It's difficult to pick apart the doctrines of a man (say, Jesus, for example) with whom the faithful claim to have a deep, personal, and spiritual relationship with. People have no such relationships with political figures. So while their beliefs are still rooted in emotion to a certain extent, there's less of an imperative to tread lightly. Basically, the nature of a debate tends to shift when issues of spirituality enter the equation. That's generally viewed as a sacred realm that is impervious to scrutiny, unlike the more intellectual realm of politics.

As for me and my family.. We have deep emotional bonds to both religion and politics.

[yjacket]

I think there is a difference between religious debates and political debates. Religious debates can get heated but at the end of the day in general if I'm LDS and you are a Catholic and we disagree we can simply part ways and while certainly the life in the eternities might be impacted; your religious view won't impact my temporal life and my views won't impact your temporal life.

 

Political debates can become more contentious because if you are conservative and I'm liberal and we disagree and part ways; your view might certainly impact my life and my view might impact your life.  It impacts you in the practical day-to-day life by the laws that are passed that put aggression, force, fines, jail, etc. at my doorstep if I don't follow your viewpoint (if your viewpoint carries the day).  Ultimately, because both sides believe in using the threat of violence-through laws- to "persuade" the other side they are right, political debates become extremely heated.

 

Instead of debating issues, it can devolve into a thug warlike atmosphere simply because both sides consciously or sub-consciously recognize that to lose the debate will impact their day-to-day lives.

 

It is something that I try my best to explain . . . but fail at. While the non-aggression principle is not perfect (it's a temporal world, nothing is perfect), I believe it is the best methodology and political principle to allow a wide range of personal beliefs and deeply held values to co-exists peacefully.

 

The following article illustrates my point:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/09/03/see-why-these-liberty-kids-from-california-are-making-national-news/

 

I have been involved in a political movement that has as diverse a background as this country.  I personally have seen atheists, blacks, whites, homosexuals, hindus, etc. come together united as a single voice.  Because once someone realizes that I don't want to control their life then they can come to understand that it's not necessary for them to control my life.  And once we agree on that, we can sweep out a vast array of laws that give political power (i.e. force) to one group or another.  Once we agree on that, then both they and I are on equal footing to debate each other and to try and convince each other of the rightness of our personal beliefs without threatening to invade theirs. 

[Vort]

In civilized areas where there is no legally or societally mandated religion, religious discussions become heated when one party (or both) feels offended. If everyone simply keeps themselves from being too much of a jerk, odds are people get along okay.

 

In contrast, even in civilized areas, political discussions become heated when one party (or both) feels offended, OR feels threatened or bullied, OR perceives an agenda that would negatively alter their lives.

 

I'm with yjacket on this. I think political debates are at greater danger of becoming ugly.

[Guest Godless]

Wow, my experience is totally different. I know gobs and gobs of people who have switched religions, some several times, or toggled between theism and atheism, some several times as well. With the exception of a few Republicans who become libertarians (moi) or a few Democrats who become Greens, I know almost nobody who has changed political party. Your view of this is quite interesting, thanks.

That is certainly true. In the case of theists who believe in a personal god, there's a more intimate connection between an individual and his/her beliefs, even if those beliefs are subject to change in the future. Think about it, how often do you hear people say things like "Being a Republucan literally saved my life" or "Barack Obama helped me find peace in my tumultuous life"? If non-believers attacked Christianity the way Democrats and Republicans attack each other, there would literally be blood in the streets. Religious affiliation may be more fragile than politics, but the sensibilities of the religious seem to be as well.

[Guest Godless]

I think there is a difference between religious debates and political debates. Religious debates can get heated but at the end of the day in general if I'm LDS and you are a Catholic and we disagree we can simply part ways and while certainly the life in the eternities might be impacted; your religious view won't impact my temporal life and my views won't impact your temporal life.

Try walking in the shoes of a non-Christian in America. I think you'll find that this is not always the case.

[PolarVortex]

 If non-believers attacked Christianity the way Democrats and Republicans attack each other, there would literally be blood in the streets. Religious affiliation may be more fragile than politics, but the sensibilities of the religious seem to be as well.

 

Well, having read and heard people like Lawrence Krauss, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, and Daniel Dennett, I understand why many theists want to start distinguishing atheism from antitheism, and I've read a lot from new, calmer atheists who reject the bomb-throwing antics of the antitheists. 

 

I think Karen Armstrong got it right: "Atheism is parasitically dependent on the form of theism it seeks to eliminate and becomes its reverse mirror image."

[askandanswer]

Last night while looking around for some material that I thought might inform my planned input to one of the current discussions on this site Google directed me to another LDS themed discussion forum. I read a few of the posts and was shocked to read how critical the posters were of other posters. After enjoying the friendly, good natured discussion on this site, it really was quite a surprise for me to see how unpleasant the posters were to each other on this other site. This experience renewed my appreciation for the thoughtful, well informed, friendly tone of discussion that prevails on this site. It made me feel grateful for people like Anatess, Vort, Pale Rider, Prison Chaplin, Mordurbund, Seminarysnoozer, Just a guy, the folk prophet, eowen, polarvortex, Jimmigerman, estradling and many many others. New as she is, I also enjoy and appreciate Claire’s well thought out and well written comments. And of course, I’m grateful to Pam for all that she does in moderating and maintaining this site, and the organisation she works for. 

[The Folk Prophet]

Last night while looking around for some material that I thought might inform my planned input to one of the current discussions on this site Google directed me to another LDS themed discussion forum. I read a few of the posts and was shocked to read how critical the posters were of other posters. After enjoying the friendly, good natured discussion on this site, it really was quite a surprise for me to see how unpleasant the posters were to each other on this other site. This experience renewed my appreciation for the thoughtful, well informed, friendly tone of discussion that prevails on this site. It made me feel grateful for people like Anatess, Vort, Pale Rider, Prison Chaplin, Mordurbund, Seminarysnoozer, Just a guy, the folk prophet, eowen, polarvortex, Jimmigerman, estradling and many many others. New as she is, I also enjoy and appreciate Claire’s well thought out and well written comments. And of course, I’m grateful to Pam for all that she does in moderating and maintaining this site, and the organisation she works for. 

 

*whew*  I'm so pleased to see you included me on the list. I thought for a second I was gonna get left out as the obnoxious one (a view, I'm certain, several share.) :)

[jerome1232]

There was no "except that jerome1232, he can be sacrificed at the stake that one", clearly I need to step up my level of obnoxiousness.

[askandanswer]

There was no "except that jerome1232, he can be sacrificed at the stake that one", clearly I need to step up my level of obnoxiousness.

I was hoping to keep it as a surprise until the stake and wood are fully prepared :)

Edited January 31, 2015 by askandanswer

[Crypto]

I surely hope it's not going to be a group sacrifice!

[SpiritDragon]

Contention is not caused by disagreement. Contention is caused by emotional reactions to disagreement. When someone posts an idea and another disagrees, all is well. When the first person reacts to that disagreement emotioinally as if it's a personal attack then things degrade quickly. That's, essentially, from my perspective, what happened in the other thread. An idea was posed. Someone questioned it (not even blatant disagreement) and that person was then attacked as being argumentative and contentious -- and downhill things quickly went.

 

Disagreement does not need to be contentious or uncivil. And, in my opinion, the holier-than-thou condemnation of the discussion process is being slung more by those who are actually causing the contention than it is by those who simply disagree.

 

It is entirely unfair to treat disagreements as if they are nothing more than contention.

 

If anything saddens me, its that -- once again from my perspective -- that there was nothing hateful said in that thread whatsoever, and yet......accusations abound.

 

Why is it that contention comes primarily from those who supposedly have a problem with contention? Why is it that judgment comes from those who supposedly speak against judgment. Why is it that those who preach love can't seem to show love to those they are condemning as hateful?

 

Maybe when the Savior taught us "first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye" there was a good reason He did so.

(speaking in kind soft tone)

 I generally agree with what you're saying here TFP, I suppose my view-point as is often the case may be more of different application of vocabulary or semantics essentially saying the same or a very similar thing. I would "contend" that disagreement and contention are synonymous. From my perspective there is nothing wrong with expressing alternative points of view and asking questions for clarification, but as soon as disagreement with those views is expressed, contention is present in the conversation.

 

As such I have tried to be better myself at asking for clarification before "pouncing" on other's posts as sometimes further clarification allows them to clear up what I perceived to be the error. I also don't usually mind so much when people express personal opinions, I get more into "pounce" mode when I perceive someone is teaching a false doctrine that needs to be corrected. I think this is largely because I feel like people come here to learn about "my" faith and I get my back up when someone is telling others what "I" believe inaccurately.

[The Folk Prophet]

(speaking in kind soft tone)

 I generally agree with what you're saying here TFP, I suppose my view-point as is often the case may be more of different application of vocabulary or semantics essentially saying the same or a very similar thing. I would "contend" that disagreement and contention are synonymous. From my perspective there is nothing wrong with expressing alternative points of view and asking questions for clarification, but as soon as disagreement with those views is expressed, contention is present in the conversation.

 

As such I have tried to be better myself at asking for clarification before "pouncing" on other's posts as sometimes further clarification allows them to clear up what I perceived to be the error. I also don't usually mind so much when people express personal opinions, I get more into "pounce" mode when I perceive someone is teaching a false doctrine that needs to be corrected. I think this is largely because I feel like people come here to learn about "my" faith and I get my back up when someone is telling others what "I" believe inaccurately.

 

I can certainly see your point. But by that thinking, Christ was contentious. So...