Bashing Religions?

Remove all ads!

The misunderstanding between Cesard the Fir Bolg and I has got me thinking. We (Canada, US, Europe, Australia, NZ) supposedly come from cultures that preach and promote tolerance, but still elements of hatred of specific groups exist.

The Link supplied by Cesard, is to a site designated to bash Mormons. As a Mormon, I do not wish to repeat that link here. It is run by a group who's whole agenda is to discredit the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

How can this happen? In some countries, there are laws prohibiting preaching hatred or seeking to incite crowds against another group based on Race, Religion or Ethnicity. Could these groups be prohibited from their operations in such nations?

And what would happen to a group that's sole purpose was to bash another religion? If they targeted Islam, there's an organization that specifically opposes defamation of Arabs, and I believe it also protects their beliefs too.

I guess the question is: What can/needs to be done to curtail these groups?

 

Unless and until they begin advocating violence against religion x, nothing should be done. Whether or not anything can be done...*shrug*

 

The only sad thing in my opinion that the ones who are the fiercest attackers on nutty religion X is then most often part of even nuttier religion Y.
The pot calling the kettle black or something.

 

Exactly. You cannot mandate that religious groups are exempt from criticism!?

If someone runs a site that encourages shooting mormons and displays the addresses and phone numbers of mormons then I will be the first to donate money to...er, I mean I will staunchly oppose such nastiness!

 

This would be contraversial in the US, but learning about lots of different religions in schools would dispell certain myths about religiouns, after all people are too lazy to reasearch for themselves, and 'word of mouth' is a very dangerious thing. If it was not for highschool, maybe today I would be thinking of Muslims as pagans, and Seikhs as bearded psychos that carry large knives!

 

I pretty much agree with what Amaster said. As long as they don't advocate violence against another group they are free to exist. In Finland there is however laws about "peace of religion" which means that you can't start burning crosses or building a pyre of bibles on the city square or anything like that.

 

The problem is that different groups divided for the same criterion (religion, race, ethnicity) don't get the same level of protection. Mormon bashing, Catholic bashing, everything goes. But imagine what if I opened an atheism bashing site or a Protestantism bashing site. We can't always agree on everything and we don't have to believe that each other's beliefs are equally good, but such beliefs are the core of someone's spirituality, they shape his outlooks and philosophy. They can't be treated like trash. Sure, we have insane or fraudulent cult leaders who come up with stuff to control or downright exploit people, but most of us hold our beliefs in good faith.

 

I'm an Islam basher

 

I'll have to disagree and I have difficult time believing that in Poland which is a very Catholic country bashing of Catholicism would be treated as an lesser offence than bashing Protestantism. Or are you referring to these boards? I consider myself to be a protestant (not a very religious but still...) and if protestantism is bashed I'll defend it sure but you will do the same about Catholicism as I'm sure we have all seen. Anyway I would appreciate if you'd clarify what you mean by saying that every group does not get the same protection.

 

I try to defend what I believe, not what I'm called. (I'm called a protestant.)
Quote: We don't see the things how they are, we see the things how WE are.
If you think irreligious people tend to bash religious people, take a good look at yourself. And if you think religious people always try to be a zealous knowitall, you might see you're one to. (I do not say you are, and you is everybody )

I think it's about time we take off our 'glasses of selective perception'.

 

Actually, the only religion I bash are Christian, but not the religion, rather most of it's followers. That would be considered dumb, but then I add more crap on the crazypile and remind you all that I AM a Christian myself.

 

it's not God/Buddha/Vishnu/Mohammed/Insert Name here I have a problem with; it's his/her/its fan club I can't stand.

My $.02 worth...

 

I've read an account of incidents of these Mormon bashers and their protests outside the semi-annual General Conference in Salt Lake City. While the sessions are underway, there's nobody to yell at or harrass, so basically they're on break. Then they behave like normal people, but when the people are entering or leaving the building, they're there screaming, chanting, swearing and otherwise acting like fools.

Criticism is one thing. Hatred and lies are another thing. I've gotten into it with you probably a couple times because of the difference in our beliefs. An intelligent Criticism (really not difficult, simply a rejection of the foundations), is one thing. Slander and accusations of fraud are another.

That would be a good idea. We need to realize that all the people, regardless of what they believe or worship (if anything) are still human, and thus still deserve to be treated with some respect. I don't try to tell you what various other faiths believe because I don't know this. I reserve only the right to speak for my own faith, and limit such word of mouth to speakers of that particular faith.

Morgoroth, In the account I read, some of the protesters were blowing their noses into and wiping their butts with sacred garments normally worn by members of the church who've made certain covenents. Would this constitute a breach of "peace of Religion" under the law that you've mentioned?

That brings up another point. Is it simply the people that they are against? Am I, by teaching a class Sunday mornings to 12 and 13 year old boys, sinning in their eyes, thus partaking in their emnity? Or is it simply the doctrine that they oppose. Is it the religion or the people that they seem to hate?

Again, the fan club as a whole or just specific things that some of them tend to do? I don't have a problem with the followers of other religions. I do have a problem with anyone that would use the name of God (or whoever they worship, under whatever name that being is called), to justify taking innocent life or to incite violence against any outside group. It's one thing to counsel the members to refrain from looking at pornography. It is another thing to call for the destruction of an adult movie store. The former is commendable, the latter beneath contempt.

 

In this case, fan club can be likened to those screaming, bouncing, hysterical fans at the front rows of a concert who throw their underwear to the stage and hold signs saying ""I want to have your babies!"; the rest of the fans are there for the music and probably feel slghtly embarrassed about the way some of their ilk are vbehaving.

Does that make any sense?

 

It probably would, I'm no expert on law so I can't say the details or be sure about it but I would imagine that would be a breach of the law. The penalty for that as you might imagine would be though extremely small, they would probably get off with a warning. This is Finland we're talking about and the penalties here are lighter than in most countries.

 

Perfect sense, actually. I don't consider myself a zealot, but I try to live rightly and speak my mind. I don't go out and point at people and tell them that they're going to Hell if they don't repent. I don't approve of sin, but I don't want to persecute the sinners. I'd be the guy that, even though I'm too old to go to the Mosh pit, I still rock out pretty Hard...

But the demonstration would be broken up by police. That's a good thing. About 200,000 people do everything in their power to get to the conferences, and they don't need to be harrassed or mocked on their way in and out. We'll see how the Hate Crimes Legislation in Canada handles it when the next Temple is built in Canada. Those protesters gather in between the parking and the site for the Ground Breaking Ceremony...

 

There are a few different issues here. First is protesting (or bashing as Gnarf wishes to call it). Protesting is allowed. It's allowed in America and Canada -- the basher's are not violating any law. If the Mormon's just ignored those individuals there wouldn't be any problems. Unfortunately, a significant number of Mormons like to cram their beliefs down anyones throats -- and arguments erupt. From these arguments Mormons and non-believers alike are arrested (since the arguments quite often escalate to threats).

I lived in Salt Lake for several years and have seen this happen. Gnarf, you're painting the Mormons as being the wronged individuals here -- targeted and persecuted because of their beliefs. You are partially correct. But the Mormons do their share of bashing.

I find the whole situation with Mormons quite comical. First, they claim to be the only true church -- and every good Mormon stands up at least once per month to make a public declaration of this -- they teach that ALL other churchs are false and are not being led by God (hmm, wonder who they claim is leading the other churches). The Mormons also claim that the Catholic church is 'the abomination' and was/is led by Satan. I find it somewhat hypocritical that Mormons make these statements but then whine and complain that someone 'bashes' their religion.

The whole 'Mormons are persecuted' thing is getting old, too. Mormons like to put themselves on the persecution pedistal -- up with the Hebrews, Muslims and Kurds. It's quite ridiculous. The numbers of Mormons that have died don't even come close to the numbers from the crusades, inquisition, or holocaust.

I'm a sixth generation Mormon (not practising though). My great-great-grandmother pushed a handcart from Nauvoo to Salt Lake, by herself, after her husband was killed in a riot in Illinois. I don't really fault the people of Illinois and Missouri, after over 15,000 Mormons decended on these poor farming communities and claimed that God had given the Mormons the land. Just what were the farmers supposed to do? They did just what I would, they defended their land against an invader. The people of Illinois and Missouri were fighting for their homes and families. And the Mormons certainly weren't peaceful, the dirty fighting went both ways (Mormons should look at the histories written by non-members, too). These skirmishes are the foundation of persecution complex for the Mormons -- this isn't persecution, sorry.

The website (and many others like the one from 'the other post') list both fact and fiction -- but mostly fact. Mount Meadows massacre really happened. Brigham Young was a powerful man who used his power to force young women to marry him (at least three were threatened with excommunication if they did not marry him). Mormons should read up on this somewhat dark side of their history. These dark incidents never shook my faith -- logic and reason did (sorry couldn't resist, actually I couldn't accept the teachings of men like McConkie who believed the archeological record is a giant lie by Satan).

 

This topic has come up before . . . . and at the time, good old Tal had us Mormons confused with the Amish

[You just HAD to bring that up, didn't you... -Tal]

Anyhoo, I have absolutely no problems with anyone bashing Mormons -- NIN can shred a copy of the Book of Mormon onstage, people can desecrate our holy symbols, they can criticize our historical record and attack our beliefs -- this is all part of living in a free society, and if Mormons wish to have the right to proselyte, then we have to accept the right of others to disagree. HOWEVER . . .

I do not countenance lies or distortions -- it's one thing to say "Mormons do not believe in the Godhead as defined by the (Insert other religious group here)". That is a fact. Saying "Mormons are all mysogynistic morons who rape baby sheep" is a stupd lie that is slander under the law of most countries. Sadly, there is no end of people who believe this kind of crap. I say, bash away, but stick to the facts and don't try any intimidation techniques (ie: A burning cross is more than a burning cross when placed outside a Black or Jewish home, and thus should be banned as a psychological attack).

I also see this sort of thing as another opportunity for people to see the inherent normalcy of the religion as a whole. When Islam gets insulted, the fanatics go out and kill people -- often other Muslims who had nothing to dowith the insult in the first place. When Mormons (or Catholics, or Jews) get insulted, they fire off a letter to the editor. Who would you rather have as your neighbour? Who do you respect more?

[ June 14, 2005, 00:20: Message edited by: Taluntain ]

 

But is it appropriate for people to scream obscenities at them as they enter or leave--some of them with children? Is it also "God's desire" that these Children hear such language? That is what one of the biggest sources of conflict--the objection to the behaviour of the protesters in front of the Children.

At this spring's General Conference (the same weekend that Pope John Paul II passed away), Pope John Paul II was called a "tireless crusader for Righteousness" in remarks by President Gordon B. Hinckley. What is not recognized is their authority or claims of Priesthood.

Had we been around during the Spanish Inquisition, I am certain that we would have been tried for Heresy if we were caught. We did not have the numbers akin to the Jews in WWII or the Muslims during the crusades, so such comparisons may not apply. What is similar, however, is that people wanted the Mormons out of their communities, and they were attacked, and driven out of community after community.

Was this land stolen or taken by force? I would doubt that highly. The way I heard the story was that the people were offended that the Mormon's wouldn't drink with them, wouldn't smoke with them and wouldn't gamble with them and upheld standards of Chastity higher than those of everyone else. When 15,000 people (I think that number may be exaggerated) like that suddenly arrive in a small, isolated community, I expect it would freak out the locals, but rather than learn about them and try to get along with them, they chose hatred and fear. You say some of the Mormons fought back? I'll buy that one. If you remember correctly from the last 15 chapters of Alma and the book of Helaman, the Righteous took up arms to defend their homes, their families and their faith. No doubt some of the early saints did the same. And they ended up leaving before more died...

Yes, there were some facts, but I doubt that all the facts were presented. Only those facts that, when isolated, supported their agenda were included. And just who is writing the "dark side" of church history? Are they honest? Are they writing objectively or are they trying to discredit the Church? These are questions that must be asked...

I'm skeptical of any interpretation of archaeological records. Anything beyond where you find stuff relies on educated guesses. We, the Human Race, are imperfect, and thus our guesses may not be right...

That's one of the points I was hoping someone could make better than I could. If you disagree, ultimately, I have to accept that. If you can't accept our Line of Priesthood Authority, Joseph Smith as a prophet, or the Book of Mormon, that's fine, but make sure you have your facts straight before you try to prove us wrong.

Exactly. We are taught that it is wrong to kill. When we have a beef, we are obligated to bring our grievance forward so that it may be resolved, rather than let if fester or take it out on innocents. We are taught to take an active interest in the political process, and to vote intelligently, according to our conscience and to reflect our views on how a country is to be run. this will include letters to the editor or threads like this...

 

Doubtful, most likely the people doing such distasteful acts (wiping your butt with anything in public is illegal in Finland anyway) would be asked to leave and if they refuse they would be thrown in prison. A protest won't be broken up just because some of the protesters are acting like idiots. The idiots will be removed and the rest can continue as usual. The thing in Finland is that you can't have a protest whenever you want. You need authorization from the police (which you will most likely get if your protest does not involve racism, advocating violence, or yelling for revolution) anyway so in all bigger protests there will be police officers watching that the protest is done peacefully.

On the other hand it's definently illegal to have protests around religious buildings or when they are having a mass or any other religious event. That is a clear breach of the "peace of religion" and if it's distrubed in any way there will be fines (and a permission for protest won't be given so the protest would illegal and arranging illegal protests might even give you a prison sentence).