I'm not talking about the people, but I guess the thread is, in which case I'll have to agree that it is bigoted. Sorry.
If I may, I would like to seperate my discussion of the people and the beliefs. Mormons shouldn't be criticised simply on the basis of their beliefs, true. None of us, myself included, would be too well off if we had to bear the brunt of critiques directed to what is usually a cultural inheritance that we have no real choice about. Often, by the time we do have a choice in the matter of faith, conditioning has done enough work to cast significant doubt on objectivity, reason, and the possiblities of conversion (to other faiths), or the evolution of an inherited faith. Family politics doesn't help. In short, most of us are stuck with faith that our parents gave us. Nobody should be penalized for that.
But Mormonism is a set of ideas. They could be good, they could be bad, and they could be ridiculous. While such a judgement is perilously close to a judgement of Mormons, it is not the same thing. People are certainly within their rights to say that the ideas of Mormonism are ridiculous, as they are free to say the same about Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Then we get to considering the merits of doctrine and tradition. Not everyone will reach the same conclusions, but everyone is free to give more or less merit to any set, to order them in an informed scale based on intellectual output, scholarship, art, history, politics.
For me, it has nothing to do with who is on the liberal left's 'P.C. protected species list.' (which is itself a ridiculous animal,as Scott H points out) I could easily say the following without bigotry:
The general contentions of Mormonism about history are incredibly incorrect.
Some of Catholicism's archaisms concerning birth-control, homosexuality, and ordination of women are clearly (hetero)sexist.
Judaism is considerably more evolved than many modern religions in it's philosophy, yet also archaic in many forms of law, and certainly eclipsed in the area of art by Catholicism.
We could go on further, but I don't really have time.
If you want to discuss Mormonism, or Catholicism, or what have you, why shouldn't one be allowed to come to unfavorable conclusions about ideas?
One should be allowed to come to a negative conclusion but the way in which that conclusion is stated can go a long way towards whether or not your opinion will be respected or just ignored. But you know that already.
Comments
[ 03-11-2002: Message edited by: Outsider ]</p>
If I may, I would like to seperate my discussion of the people and the beliefs. Mormons shouldn't be criticised simply on the basis of their beliefs, true. None of us, myself included, would be too well off if we had to bear the brunt of critiques directed to what is usually a cultural inheritance that we have no real choice about. Often, by the time we do have a choice in the matter of faith, conditioning has done enough work to cast significant doubt on objectivity, reason, and the possiblities of conversion (to other faiths), or the evolution of an inherited faith. Family politics doesn't help. In short, most of us are stuck with faith that our parents gave us. Nobody should be penalized for that.
But Mormonism is a set of ideas. They could be good, they could be bad, and they could be ridiculous. While such a judgement is perilously close to a judgement of Mormons, it is not the same thing. People are certainly within their rights to say that the ideas of Mormonism are ridiculous, as they are free to say the same about Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Then we get to considering the merits of doctrine and tradition. Not everyone will reach the same conclusions, but everyone is free to give more or less merit to any set, to order them in an informed scale based on intellectual output, scholarship, art, history, politics.
For me, it has nothing to do with who is on the liberal left's 'P.C. protected species list.' (which is itself a ridiculous animal,as Scott H points out) I could easily say the following without bigotry:
The general contentions of Mormonism about history are incredibly incorrect.
Some of Catholicism's archaisms concerning birth-control, homosexuality, and ordination of women are clearly (hetero)sexist.
Judaism is considerably more evolved than many modern religions in it's philosophy, yet also archaic in many forms of law, and certainly eclipsed in the area of art by Catholicism.
We could go on further, but I don't really have time.
If you want to discuss Mormonism, or Catholicism, or what have you, why shouldn't one be allowed to come to unfavorable conclusions about ideas?
One should be allowed to come to a negative conclusion but the way in which that conclusion is stated can go a long way towards whether or not your opinion will be respected or just ignored. But you know that already.